Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 25

David Orme-Johnson
Interesting to see that Will Beback  feels that D.W. Orme-Johnson warrant his own Wiki page. It is linked to from this page. --BwB (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He has been perhaps the main researcher on TM-related issues, and has often been quoted in the mainstream media about the topic.   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Orme Johnson is widely cited in regard to TM research.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New sentence lede-Footnote Fix
Kbob. The new sentence you added has been added as part of the ref. Seems the sentence was supposed to be in the actual lede or am I wrong on that.(olive (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I never make mistakes :-) but just in case I will check now-- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, me neither, never, absolutely not.(olive (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I had some problems initially when I added the refs but now it seems OK. If you see mistake please fix it. Thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved Template
I am going to start using the Resolved template on the talk page. Its a helpful tool any editor can add or delete to a talk page. For more info see here. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this can tell new editors hitting the talk page what items have been resolved - a useful tool. --BwB (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Third and Fourth Sentences in the Lede
This thread is getting long and so I have created a subsection so we can move the discussion forward without confusion.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the lede is going to mention the ownership of the servicemarks then the body of the article should go into greater detail about it. However it's now the opposite - there's nothing in the article about it all. Further, it makes an assertion about the ultimate ownership of the trademarks that isn't contained in the source. It's not clear why this is so important that it need sto be in the. Neither the Maharishi Foundation nor the MVEDC have articles, so it's not really informative at all. I suggest moving the entire sentence to somewhere in the body of the article (and finding a better source).   Will Beback    talk    04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points Will Beback. I was wondering about that myself. We'll have to find a better place for these points, if they are needed at all, and if we keep them, a better reference. Do others agree? ChemistryProf (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wills suggestion to move the trademark info to another place. --BwB (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we move both of these sentences out of the lede and into the body of the article for the reasons Will has stated. Neither of them are developed as topics or subtopics in the article and are therefore out of place in the lede. Also, neither of them cites a significant 2nd party source. Wiki guidelines state:
 * The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible." -- — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the "servicemark" materil to the "Teaching procedure" section, where it follows logically.   Will Beback    talk    21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the sentence regarding the 2006 report that TM is one of 60 related products and services, to the History section. Since this has been proposed previously and there were no objections to removing the sentence from the lede.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Will, this seems to be the right place for the servicemark material. KBob, the information that many other techniques or procedures are offered by the same organizations that offer the TM technique may belong somewhere in the article, but I still feel uneasy about the reference. It is information from one teacher quoted in a newspaper. Anyone who has ever been interviewed by a reporter knows how frequently mistakes are made. I suggest we keep on the lookout for a more reliable source for this point. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed, let's look for a better source.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fenwick, Source Needed
The following sentence, currently in the article, has no reliable source at the present time. I have searched the book cited using the search words "transcendental meditation" and also "EEG". Neither search yields any copy relevant to the statement below. Can we find a source for this? If not, it may need to be removed from the article.
 * "Peter Fenwick has pointed out that Transcendental Meditation researchers have documented the phenomenon of EEG coherence during meditation and that EEG coherence is also a byproduct of epileptic seizures, comas, and death."


 * I remember seeing somewhere recently research showing a number of positive characteristics related to EEG coherence. I’ll try to find that reference. In any case, if this current sentence is not backed up by a reliable reference, then it does not belong in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This text is currently in the article, right after the Fenwick sentence:
 * Studies show that TM reduces the number of seizures in epileptic patients and normalizes their EEG. An experimental study that was done on the Transcendental Meditation technique and epilepsy found that the epileptic patients initially had abnormally low levels of 5-HIAA in the cerebral spinal fluid, which then increased to normal levels after several months of practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. This correlated with clinical improvements in these patients. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did find some scientific papers supporting the importance of high EEG coherence in execution of the higher functions of the brain. Here is just one example: Neuroimage. 2007 May 15;36(1):232-44. Epub 2007 Feb 27. "Human cortical circuits for central executive function emerge by theta phase synchronization." Mizuhara H, Yamaguchi Y. I vote for dropping both the Fenwick sentence and the related ones that follow it. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ChemistryProf, for finding that. I agree that Fenwick should be dropped unless it's in the context of a fuller discussion of the EEG research. I'd like to retain the following citation to research by Subrahmanyam, since it's relevant to the Persinger paragraph, in which he suggests that TM causes epilepsy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following un-sourced sentence from the article, per the above discussion. If a reliable source is found. We can add it back in.
 * Peter Fenwick has pointed out that Transcendental Meditation researchers have documented the phenomenon of EEG coherence during meditation and that EEG coherence is also a byproduct of epileptic seizures, comas, and death. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. --BwB (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this decision and also with the comment of TimidGuy above. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is found in Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality John Horgan, the book that it is linked to. P 116 Mozart&#39;s Left Ankle (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the exact page of this book, Mozart. And welcome to the discussion page. --BwB (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, the only research that shows "coherence" of brainwaves that I've heard of has been done by MUM-affiliated scientists or students. I find it scientifically unacceptable due to COI (a replication by objective researchers would be needed to confirm).

During Dr. Glueck's study back in 1973 we found evidence that Alpha brainwaves are always exactly synchronized all over the skull. This might seem amazing, but the explanation is really quite simple. There is a group of cells, centrally located in or below the lower brain, that generates the Alpha frequency signal. This signal is conducted electrically by the large blood vessels in the brain prior to being picked up by electrodes attached to the scalp.

Indeed, for this reason there is no way that the Alpha signal can ever be unsynchronized. When the eyes are open, the large signals from optic processing drown out the Alpha signal, producing comparatively random activity that looks like desynchronization, due to the optic processing signals being so much higher in amplitude (much more of the brain is devoted to visual perception than to generating the Alpha signal).

So, mathematically, one can say that synchronization happens when the eyes are closed and disappears when the eyes are open, but true synchronization of functioning of separated areas of the brain has certainly not been demonstrated.

If one wanted to research this, EEG equipment is inadequate. Direct visualization of the electrical activity of the brain is required. This is possible with much more expensive (and much less common) laboratory equipment.

In any case, the effects on the brain of TM show no significant features in common with "epileptic seizures, comas, and death" (Alpha waves are not a significant feature). Confirm with any EEG researcher. If they did, one might expect these conditions to appear more often in TM meditators than in the general population. Trust me, that would be noticed!

Unfortunately, this information cannot be added to the article due to OR. But it might help make the discussion here more informed. David spector (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, brainwave coherence is now a phenomenon generally studied among neuroscientists, not just TM researchers. It's also turning out to be of interest to those in the new field of quantum applications to neurological phenomena. Some recent TM research has focused on broadband frontal coherence, not alpha coherence. This phenomenon is associated with reduced anxiety, emotional stability and other positive outcomes. As you say, there's no evidence that there's a causal relationship between epileptic seizures, comas, and death. Since no one here seems to have the time or the interest currently to put this statement found in Horgan's book in the larger context of EEG research on TM, then the consensus here seems to be that it can be deleted for now. But since it comes up occasionally, I think that we'll eventually need to include an EEG section in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lazarus
I'm just looking at the Lazarus paper. This is a two-page paper that exclusively contains anecdotal case reports. Per WP:MEDRS: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." It's not a scientific study. There's no literature review, no research design, no methodology, no data, no analysis of data. TimidGuy (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I disagree. Second, you have been directed by multiple administrators at COIN over the course of multiple discussions that you are not to directly edit any of the TM-related articles other than for removal of vandalism, but are to confine your participation to the talk pages only. Do I take it that it is your intention to ignore those directives?Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before reliably sourced is used to support included content, that is even considered, the content should have some threshold for inclusion. If the Lazarus study falls below the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion then whether it reliably sourced or not would be a moot point.(olive (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Fladrif. TG has not been blocked or banned ever nor had arbitration deemed it necessary to limit his editing anywhere. Your constant pressing of the COI issue borders on, or is outright harassment, and disrupts editing here. I suggest you deal with the editing and not the editors(olive (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)).
 * The Lazarus paper is not a case report, and the citation of WP:MEDRS on use of a case report dealing with a single patient is inapplicable. Lazarus meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS. The summary deletion of reliably-sourced paragraphs without discussion by an editor repeatedly found to be in violiation of WP:COI is what is disrupting editing, not my pointing it out. Fladrif (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If an article contains multiple anecdotal cases rather than only one, it is still considered a case report. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just looked at a copy of the discussed Lazarus article. It is actually far less than a typical case study, which routinely describes the medical history and pathophysiology in some detail.  This report was more of a transient anecdotal report of several different subjects, most of whom were neither observed by the author nor were they practitioners of TM.  There are several hundred peer reviewed designed science studies published on TM in the literature. Before publications of far lesser quality (as defined by WP:RS) are included here, many, many more of the higher quality studies will need to be included and discussed first (and this should occur in any case).  I will be reverting back the inclusion of Lazarus. I suggest any editors with a different opinion regarding this "report" should carefully read it first, before further discussing or editing this section.Duedilly (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Beacon Light
BWB's deletion is entirely inconsistent with the discussion at RSNB (which he mistakenly referenced as COIN). The uninvolved administrators concurred that it is a reliable source, primary source. As a primary source, it is an appropriate use to include a short quote consistent with information in separate, secondary sources. In this case, the quote supports both (i) the "scientific" basis for the selection of mantra based on their particular sounds as well as (ii) that the mantras are the names of various gods, each points made in the secondary sources as well. Thus, the deletion is entirely improper, and I have reverted it. Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I made an error in referring of the WP:COIN discussion instead of the WP:RSN. But in reading the comments on the RSNB again, it seem that Fladrif is the only one support its use, whereas we have everyone else feeing that it should not be used.  As I never been involved in a RSNB issue before, perhaps some experience editor could inform us as to how to take the appropriate action from the discussion board to the article.  It seems that if more editors have a particular view that this should be abided by all editors.  Until further discussion and clarification on the RSNB policy, I am re-reverting Fladrif's revert.  --BwB (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're reaction when you're not sure what to do is to revert? You really think that's the way to go in that situation? I don't think so. You're comment suggests that you did not carefully read, or you did not understandwhat the independent, uninvolved editors wrote at RSNB on this question. Reread it. Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in the above comment, Flad, I have asked for other opinions and that is what we are getting. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif. BWB's interpretation is as valid as yours.


 * BWB . The notice boards are meant to give outside opinion but they are in no way binding on the editors working on the article. I think it was was fine for you to remove the content given you understood that there was an agreement about the content. Now since there seems to be some disagreement as to interpretation we could bring this back to discussion. I am in no way convinced that Fladrif's interpretation of the comments by the two uninvolved editors supports inclusion of the text we have in the article. I think we need some discussion and a request for agreement on this (olive (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I did not mean to imply that Flad's interpretation is invalid. It just seemed that the discussion seemed to be leaning towards not including source, so I thought it legit to take it out.  I am very happy to continue discussing it until there is resolution and/or consensus.  --BwB (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no I didn't take your comment that way at all. I think your reasoning was perfectly understandable.(olive (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

lede and date
What the source says:

"In 1957 His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi began to offer to the world....In that year he introduced the simple, natural, and universal technique of Transcendental Meditation."

Bevan Morris. Forward. The Science of Being and Art of Living. By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. New York, Penguin,1963.


 * The MMY article, however, has long stated, with references, that he began teaching TM in India in 1955, not 1957. All of the Obits say that he began teaching TM in 1955 as well.  So do other news sources and books.     I can't imagine why this would be at all controversial.Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, let me point out (and this is relevant to the discussion above as well), even a paper published by MUM in JMSVS say that MMY began teaching TM in India in 1955, and specifically identifies the speeches at Kerala (i.e. the ones contained in "Beacon Light" as the teaching of TM. This message is characteristic of all the years Maharishi has been teaching his Transcendental Meditation throughout the world,from the very first lectures he delivered in Trivandrum in Kerala, India, in 1955. Many other "official" TM Org sites also identify 1955 as the correct date of the beginning of TM. Fladrif (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Faldrif you are conflating Maharishi's teaching and philosophy with a technique. The technique, specifically the technique, is not cited in TM organization literature that I've ever seen at least as having being taught in 1955, nor is the technique the Mahrishi's master used necessarily TM in fact it probably wasn't since TM was adapted for householders which Maharishi's master was not. The quote above is taken out of context. In context Bevam Morris is referring to Maharishi's concern with World peace a concern that was evident in his very first lectures. Its critical to understanding, that Maharishi lectured on a philosophical position and then supported that position with a practical technique. When he stabilized the technique as it is taught today is unclear. If you insist on including this in the lede, and yes it is controversial, please use the source that specifically says he taught the technique in 1955. I'm not convinced the lede is a place for controversial information, though.  The two sources in place now do not support the date 1955. I realize you are attempting to legitimatize Beacon Light by adding information in several articles.  (olive (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I have to support Olive's assertion here. These text do not say that MMY began teaching TM in 1955.  And I too have noticed that Flad has been placing references and text in several articles from BL.  However, before we decide whether or not to include BL as a source in this article, it will have to be discussed further on the WP:RSN page.  --BwB (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. The sources I cited above specifically state that MMY began teaching TM in 1955. And Bevan's statement, which is yet another source, is not taken out of context at all. If you want to argue that the technique he was teaching in 1955 wasn't TM, I expect you to provide independent, verifiable, reliable sources that say so. I made that challenge to KBob, above, when he tried to raise this same issue earlier, but he produced no source whatsoever. Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said,  we should use the source that specifically says  this was the TM technique. The sources in place now do not say that. The onus is not an editor to prove that something that isn't there, isn't there.  The onus is on the editor adding information to make sure the source supports the content added. The authoritative text on this discussion would be the TM organization I would think,  and as I said I have not yet seen a place where they say specifically that in 1955 or in Beacon Light Maharishi  references TM  or began teaching the TM technique.  Because  of that I do consider this a controversial addition. In actuality Morris is talking about Maharishi's concern with Peace rather than teaching the technique itself.(olive (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
 * While you've quibbled with whether or not Bevan's article supports the 1955 date, and with whether or not what MMY was teaching in 1955 was TM, arguments that I find singularly unpersuasive, and for which you have offered no support whatsoever, you can hardly contest that the AP Obit which was reprinted around the world, the 1995 SF Gate article, and Partrige's book all say unequivocally, and without any room for quibbling - even by you - that the Maharishi began teaching TM in 1955.  Now, those are all reliable sources.  And, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many other reliable sources that say exactly the same thing.  Books, magazine articles, encyclopedias  ,   And, I am not familar with any TM official site or publication which contradicts that in any way, they simply say that in 1957 he announced the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in Madras, to take TM to a world-wide audience.  They don't say anything that contradicts any of the reliable sources that say that he had already been teaching the TM technique in India since 1955.  Now, given that, I do not see how this is "controversial" at all, and since you've questioned my motives, I've certainly got to wonder what your's are. Perhaps there is truth in the claims that the TM Org has  busily supressed "Beacon Light" for the past 40 years because it contradicts much of what the TM Org claims about TM. But, cutting through all that, do I understand your last comment to indicate that you do not contest and have no objection to the inclusion of the 1955 date so long as we reference the AP Obit, the SFGate article and Partridge? Fladrif (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I said above, use a source that supports the date you want in the article... the ones that were in place didn't. I like accuracy and Morris's comment doesn't say what you say it does. I am never trying to persuade anyone. I am working with policy as I understand it and am attempting to explain my position rather than convince.

what we have now is a situation where you have in place sources that support 1957.. I assume. I haven't looked at them.... The TM sites just don't say that this was the date... and that's the authoritative source and in such a case can be cited. They don't have to contest the date why would they. My secondary concern is that yes indeed this is contentious because the authoritative source does not use the 1955 date but the 1957 date, and other secondary sources use the 1955 date. In such a case both sides should be presented so the reader has complete information, but that shouldn't happen in the lede. Its a dilemma and I'm not sure how it could or should be handled.(olive (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)) ... and thanks for adding those sources. Appreciated. (olive (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Link to Iṣṭa-deva(tā)
I am not sure why this link has been placed on the words personal Gods in the "Principles of the Technique" section.

Also wondering why this particular quote has to be highlighted. Are we not still discussing the use of BL as a reliable source WP:RSN? --BwB (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Highlighting the quote gives it undue weight. Also linking Ista-deva from the words personal gods is OR since the words Ista-deva are not mentioned.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using blockquote format is appropriate under MOS, and the argument that to use blockquotes gives a passage "undue weight" is just silly. But, if it's that offensive to your sensiblities, I'm not going to make an issue of it. As to the internal reference, I suggest you reread the source. The source makes it abundantly clear, both by specific definitions, and by repeated use in context that the English phrase "personal Gods" is identical to "Ista-deva". That is not original research. It is not synthesis. I am frustrated when these terms get thrown around when they bear no rational relationship to what is being asserted by way of justification for removing relevant, reliably sourced information. It is what the source material says explicitly, and I'm restoring the internal link.Fladrif (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to the Lede
As you are all aware the purpose of the lead/lede in an article is to introduce and summarize the article as well as entice the reader to read further. At the present time our lede consists of only two sentences. A proper lede has 3-4 paragraphs and gives an encapsulation of the article topic/subject. For examples see these two recently featured articles here and here.

Here is my proposed text for the lede:
 * The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques. It is taught in a standardized seven step course by certified teachers. The technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced, while sitting down, for 15-20 minutes twice per day.


 * In 1957 the Maharishi began a series of world tours during which he introduced and taught his meditation technique to thousands of people. In 1959 the Maharishi founded the International Meditation Society and began to train teachers of Transcendental Meditation. During the late 1960’s through the mid 1970’s, the Transcendental Meditation technique received significant public attention in the USA, especially amongst the student population. During this period a million people learned the Transcendental Meditation technique including well known public figures.


 * Scores of studies performed on the technique have been published in scientific journals. The Transcendental Mediation technique has also received criticism from some scientists as well as authors of books on new religious movements and cults. In addition the TM technique has been involved in two lawsuits.

Please give your comments, suggestions etc. on this proposed content on this page. If you would like to edit the proposed content please go to my sandbox here and make any additions or edits that you like. After we have finalized the content I will locate appropriate sources already listed in the article and cite them in the lede. Thanks for you help and participation. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Think it's good except for the 3rd paragraph. I do not feel we need the sentence on the law suits.  --BwB (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b>, we do need to put some new information into the lede. The paragraphs you list are a good starting place. I will make some changes in your sandbox. I like the stepwise process, with chances for changes before the new material is inserted. These things may go more smoothly if we do not rush it too much. Give other editors a chance to contribute. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Made some edits in your sandbox. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good edits, Anyone else have input or would like to make changes to the sandbox version here?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a few more edits. If there is a better way to keep up with the latest version than what I used, let me know. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sentences from the lede from the last version in the sandbox. Editors may tweak as needed and if there are significant issues please start a new thread as I am closing this one now. Thanks for the cooperation and assistance.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lede, 60's and 70's
Also not sure why we are giving such prominence to the 60's and 70's in the lede? --BwB (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede was written to reflect the emphasis in the article. Later if we expand the History section to include more info about the 80's and 90's than we can amend the lede to reflect these additions. But right now the 60's and 70's stand out.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious why the 60's and 70's are most prominent. After the collapse of TM as a mass-market product in the mid to late-70's, the TM Org became significantly more inward-focused, placing more emphasis on selling training "advanced" techniques and products such as TM-Sidhi, and yet more esoteric and controversial beliefs and practices about which the public and popular press is little aware. Since the editors with ties to the TM Org have succeeded over the years in pushing those aspects of TM off the pages of this article, insisting that this article needs to be about the "technique" only,(while simultaneously insisting that nothing that is not straight off the pages of "official" publications about the technique must be deleted) that doesn't leave much to say about TM in the late 70's onward, does it?Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Studies and Scientific/Medical Literature On The Adverse Effects Of TM
I have added this section - the first in series of additions I would like to make to the research section - due to my long held -and stated here - belief, that the research section is not only highly unbalanced but to "pro" TM with any criticism of the research quickly removed. In this new section all of the studies are from reliable sources and are specific to TM.

I shall be investigation this area further and making additions to each section as necessary. One will have to stay with me on this however, given time restraints.

Ed: Sorry, yes it was me. The7thdr (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding this section, 7th. However the studies you site have been debunked by David Orme-Johnson.  A detailed analysis of the mentioned studies by Otis, Lazarus, etc.  can be found at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm.  If we are going to add this section on adverse effects, then I would like to also include these discussions on the research by Orme-Johnson.  Bigweeboy (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an overall discussion of the research by Orme-Johnon and other MUM scholars would be a good idea. It's missing context now.   Will Beback    talk    18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. Are you willing to lead this, Will?  --BwB (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't done any research on TM and have too many other WP matters pending.   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I can come up with a little something - in time :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When we all get around to rewriting the Research section of the article, I suggest that we incorporate the "Adverse Effects" studies in the appropriate research section, rather than having a section all to itself. That way a reader can find the pros and con research in one specific subsection of the Research. We should avoid an "adverse effects" section just as we've studiously avoided a "benefits" section. --BwB (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a ground rule that only research is cited that is 1)peer-reviewed, i.e., published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, 2) is actually about TM and not some other practice, 3) has not been found by a meditation research expert to be methodologically flawed. Sounds good? What other criteria? --talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencesays (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose to remove two entries here. The first, Otis, is not a peer reviewed study. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies that should be added before we start adding non peer reviewed studies. The second is Persinger. This study claims to include some indefinite amount (65% to 70%) of practitioners of TM, purportedly as self reported by a questionnaire.  The mixing of cohorts does not allow any suggested results of this questionnaire to be extended to apply to TM.  Further, the lack of certainty here about even the exact percentage of the mix adds further doubt to the study's reliability and applicability to TM. Duedilly (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get a copy of the Persinger study. What I've always wondered is why he says 65-70%. Doesn't he know exactly how many? If not, then that suggests there's some uncertainty in whether the respondents practice TM or another form of meditation. In addition, there's also a problem relying on a person's self report in regard to whether he or she is practicing TM. People sometimes learn the relaxation response or make up their own technique and think of it as TM. There's evidence that this self reporting is extremely unreliable. The public poll done in 1977 reported that 3% of the population in the U.S. practiced TM. But since the organization was closely tracking how many learned, it was possible to know whether that poll was relatively accurate. In fact, it was off by a huge amount -- as much as a factor of 10. At the time only a fraction of 1% had learned TM (and to this day it remains a fraction of 1%). TimidGuy (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rework History Section
This coming week I will rework the History Section. I will post a draft version on the Talk page for feedback. One thing i want to do is remove the subsection titles such as "Popularity" in the History. Keep checking here of a version in the coming days. --BwB (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A rough outline of the changes:
 * 1. Propose new section titles by decades not topic
 * 2. Propose revision of Popularity section
 * 3. Propose addition of new material on other notable events --BwB (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this sentence from the "Origin" subsection. The sentence is completely out of context.


 * "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. [22] " --BwB (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this information be more suitable in the Maharishi bio?   Will Beback    talk    20:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following sentence from the "Origin" subsection. The Beacon Light source has been discussed on the WP:COIN and a consensus reached that we should not use the Beacon Light quotes, and not use Beacon to introduce new points or analyses.
 * "In October, 1955 the Maharishi said that: "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." " --BwB (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is my head at today?! The sentence above was removed from the Principles section, not the Origin section. The Beacon was discussed on the WP:RSN page not the WP:COIN page. --BwB (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That misrepresents the discussion at RSN.Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we begin by removing the subsection titles in the History section? I have long felt that they are too specific and tend to limit the content. Can we just go by decade? This is how I have seen it done in many other articles. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support that move.   Will Beback    talk    20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I, too, support changing the History headings to chronological ones. I agree with the intention to improve other aspects of this section, as long as the steps go at a pace that allows input from several editors. I agree with Will Beback  that the Maharishi article would be a better place for the sentence on Guru Dev. The decision on the Beacon Light statement appears to be supported based on a the recent discussion on the WP:RSN page. I hope the further changes will be at a slower pace, so those of us who have limited time each day can be involved in the decisions. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chem we will move a t a leisurely pace. Happy to have your involvement. --BwB (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per what appears to be consensus on this issue of chronology, I have very slowly, very leisurely, while sipping tea and listening to soft jazz, changed the subsection headings to decades instead of topics. I also move one sentence and split one sentence which was on the cusp of two decades. I must say it gives that section a much more professional look and makes it easier to read.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good start, Kbob. We can now continue to refine and hone this section. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of sections on TM Teacher Training to 60's section. --BwB (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Added note about the training of 35,000 people in TM in Armenia in 1990. --BwB (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the source?   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Effect on the physiology
Suggest we remove the sentence "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. [89]" from the end of the paragraph. Does not add much to discussion of TM research. --BwB (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting deleting other references to the effects of meditation on physiology? This seems like a fairly significant assertion in a mainstream source.   Will Beback    talk    19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless this sentence references the TM technique specifically it belongs in an article on mediations in general. This sentence is lovely example of WP:OR


 * "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."


 * ...and its inclusion creates a kind of implied and incorrect synthesis of information. If research studies effects of TM on Physiology, and if studies on Physiology are confused rather than clarified  then studies on  TM are more confused than clarified. (olive (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, this was my thinking Olive, but you expressed the rational so clearly. This is a statement about "multiple kinds of meditation" and does not specifically apply to TM. Let's take it out. --BwB (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a good-faith argument. The Time's article is specifically about David Holmes paper and the responses to that paper.  As I am quite certain olive is well-aware, Holmes was specifically addressing Transcendental Meditation research in his paper. Fladrif (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MEDRS, the Holmes paper should be cited, not the New York Times. That guideline says not to use popular media, unless it's as a convenience for the reader to go along with the citation to the scientific publication. We'd need to look at Holmes and see specifically what it says about TM. Also, we might want to include this followup article that appeared in American Psychologist responding to the Holmes review.. In fact, there were apparently a number of responses published over a period of several years. We should probably skip the NY Times and report the published literature, especially since the NY Times article is so dated. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article makes extensive reference to TM. If WP:MDRS is applied consistently to all aspects of this article then I don't object to deleting references to studies more than a few years old, including this one. Are we committed to treating TM as a purely medical topic?   Will Beback    talk    21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. If this gets deleted, big sections of the research sections of this article - pro and con - should also come out with a meat-axe approach. There is a double-standard being applied here by the editors with ties to the TM_Org when it comes to WP:MEDRS. The backstory of the NY Times article is that there was a lengthly kerfluffle on the pages of American Psychologist which actually went on for several years. The article is a good summary of the state of the back-and-forth as of that point in time, and it is a much better source and approach for this article than trying to get into the details of every single back-and-forth, or getting into, as timidguy's suggestion boils down to, cherry-picking which of the original studies and articles we're going to summarize and how. I wasn't initially in favor of your idea of splitting off the TM research into a separate article, but once 7th did it, I see the merits of the suggestion.  And this particular discussion here reinforces my convinction that you were right, and this article ought to say no more than a paragraph or two on the subject, and link to the new article.Fladrif (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * sheesh... hold on ...I'm noting the sentence in the article is OR and synthesis. I was not discussing the merits of the source. That's another discussion I wasn't part of at this point. Whatever the source says cite it in the article properly so its not OR or synthesis. At the same time per MEDRS the Holmes paper is in fact a more reliable source than the NYT. I don't see a policy called  WP:MEATAXE. One thing at a time.(olive (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm going to assume that you mean the sentence in the TM article, which isn't OR at all; the referenced portion of the NYTimes article states: "Fifteen years of research, however, has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified." Now, if I misunderstand you, and what you're really claiming is that the NYTimes article is OR, then I'm going to need a martini. Fladrif (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Better get the Martini. The sentence doesn't refer to TM. The source does yes, the sentence, no.... I don't see what the big deal is Fladrif. This is a technical point that deals with how something is placed in an article. This article isn't about meditation (general). Its about  TM (specific). If used and there now seems to be question that it should be it needs to be used in a way that references the topic of the article specifically, TM, not meditation in general. That's just policy. A kaffuffle isn't research. You'd have to make some connection between the back door stuff you mention then put it in an appropriate place here. If the point is to cite the research as said above then cite the research rather than a newspaper article per MEDRS. I guess I'm missing the concern here.

To summarize the issues. (Unless I'm missing something):
 * The sentence itself violates policy...
 * The source is specific but that specificity isn't being employed here.
 * The source describes something that may be significant (kaffuffle)
 * If the source is being used to cite research then per MEDRS the study itself is more compliant.


 * Who wrote the above comment? Did someone forget to sign? --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're seriously trying to argue that the NY Times article constitutes OR, then you better reread OR. The policy is about editors doing original research. The sources cited can do all the original research they want to, and our job as editors is to accurately reflect what was said. The NY Times article is specifically about TM research, as is the Holmes paper being discussed in it.  Given that the current language was something that, IIFC, KBob wrote after you, he and other editors with ties to the TM Org were unhappy with the prior language which cited this NYTimes article, and after a whole new section on "TM vs Rest", which was the "rebuttal" to Holmes, was welded into this article, I cannot assume, in light of the evidence to the contrary, that you are making this argument in good faith.Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the applicability of MEDRS discussed above, I'd support generally following that guideline in this article. Note that MEDRS doesn't say that any study more than 3-5 years old should automatically be deleted. This guideline is really just common sense. Use the original study rather than the media reports. Prefer later research if it has superseded earlier research. Prefer meta-analyses if they have superseded individual studies. Regarding the specific issue at hand, the next step would be to get the Holmes study and see what it says. We want to make sure he doesn't pool data. If he does, then we can't say anything specifically about TM that the study doesn't itself specifically say. I do have a copy of the followup study by Dillbeck and Orme-Johnson. They did a meta-analysis of 31 studies that included studies reviewed by Holmes but also other studies and later studies. (Holmes's cutoff date was 2002, theirs was 2005.) They did find a difference in somatic arousal when comparing TM to rest. They also discussed the inherent weakness of the "vote counting" approach used by Holmes. TimidGuy (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict


 * Fladrif. How about we just agree we disagree. If you read my post again you'll see that I am not talking about the source in terms of OR. I am discussing the actual sentence in the article. You can't add a sentence like, dogs seem to bite when irritated to an article about Cocker Spaniels, even  if a source on Cocker Spaniels concludes by saying dogs seem to bite when irritated.  In doing so you are by implication saying Cocker Spaniels bite when irritated.. and first that's not what the source says... the source is making a generalization that may or may not refer to Cocker Spaniels, and second by adding it to an article on CS that  general comment becomes an implied fact about CS. Both are jumps in information that are inaccurate. I'm trying to be clear but apparently not doing so well. Maybe I need a Martini. Oh wait, I don't like alcohol. Martini with olives,please Hold the Martini, just the olives .(olive (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Whether citing this source or not is appropriate at the point in the article is a whole other issue and another discussion... and depends on whether it is being used to cite the research in which case as we all know and have mentioned in the past MEDRS comes into play.(olive (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

When I brought this whole topic up to delete the sentence, my thinking was that the "sentence" was out of place, and did not think about the quality of the source. I feel the sentence should be taken out because it is speaking about meditation in general, while this article is about TM in particular. We seem to be getting quite a heated debate here about a relatively small point. --BwB (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem like it should be removed, per MEDRS. It could be replaced with Holmes and the meta-analysis done as a followup to Holmes. TimidGuy (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the sentence is out of place in the article. It is not about TM and removal is a good idea I think.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As per WP:RS, there are many relevant peer reviewed medical studies that should be included in the article, long before speculative comments from newspapers and magazines are added. In that regard, I plan to add medical studies published in reputable journals into the appropriate sections. Duedilly (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably should add Holmes in its place. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of quotations
WP:QUOTE is an excellent discussion of how to use quotes — and how not to use them. In general, it reinforces the notion of the use of summary style and neutral tone in an encyclopedia article. I mention this because I feel like it may serve as a corrective to the way that quotes are sometimes used in the TM article. In particular, it says a Wikipedia editor should avoid quotations when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Also, regarding how to use quotations, it advises against standalone quotations: "Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph." And "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." And it advises against overusing quotations. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --BwB (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the quote template to the article. It uses way too many quotes. And I suggest we follow the advice in WP:QUOTE. TimidGuy (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New Lede Comments
Thanks for the work on the new Lede section. I do not think it necessary to include this sentence in the lede "The technique has also aroused controversy." I propose it be removed and the controversy issues can be raised in the bulk of the article. --BwB (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. --BwB (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section
This section, which includes "Cult Issues" and "Relationship to Religion", now seems way out of balance with the rest of the article, especially Cult part. Do others feel we need to dedicate so much verbage to this? Perhaps it could be condensed? --BwB (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At present 25% of the article is devoted to controversial issues surrounding TM. Is TM really that controversial? I don't think so.

If you look at the Reception section you will notice that the citations are primarily from a handful of cult and new religion authors. Their point of view should be included in the article but in proper proportion to the portrayal of TM by the mainstream media. At present 5-10 authors who specialize in cults and new religions are being given undue priority in comparison to the the hundreds of authors and news writers who have reported non-controversial aspects of TM.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a false statement of what "Weight" means in a Wiki article, and is the flip side of the same specious argument repeatedly made to exclude or minimize any criticism of TM research or any research the conclusions of which are contrary to the positions of the TM Org. About half the article is about "Research", although nearly all of that is about research undertaken by people with direct ties to MUM and the TM Org.  The fact that mainstream science and medicine virtually ignores TM and its claims, or that many of its claims are dubious and have been subject to criticism is buried under the "hundreds of studies" "peer reviewed publications" talking points.  Yes, there are serious controversies concerning TM. They have been reported not only in the sources you characterize as specializing in "cults and new religions" but in mainstream news publications.  That there are also hundreds or even thousands of articles which say nothing about the controversies is irrelevant to (i) whether there is a controversy and (ii) what is an appropriate amount of space devoted to it.  And, I would note that in saying that 1/4 of the article deals with controversies, the actual text consists of roughly equal space devoted to "pro" and "con" on each particular controversy. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, why is this study by the National Research Council Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance not being prominently featured both in the Research and the Religion section Fladrif (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, if mainstream science ignores the research, then why is it published in top mainstream academic journals? Every article published in a peer-reviewed journal is assessed by a mainstream editor and two mainstream peer reviewers. In what sense are they ignoring this research if they're publishing it? And what makes the claims dubious? Science is science. Just because you don't agree with the result of a scientific study makes it dubious? These aren't talking points. This is research done in the way that research is done, and published in the literature in the way that research is published in the literature. At some point you're going to have to propose a metric regarding balance other than your intuition. I've suggested Google News as a metric, per WP:SET. And I think Google Scholar is a good metric for looking at balance in the academic literature. Both metrics give strong weight to the research. And the mainstream media largely give positive coverage to TM. The problem is that you try to skew the article to your point of view and in the process violate policies and insert errors and misrepresent sources. This has been documented. You enforce your point of view via edit warring and create a hostile environment not amenable to collaboration. You make no effort to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and don't engage in rational, logical discussion. As immediately above, you turn everything into Ad hominem and Red herring, both of which are logical fallacies. You're intelligent, and I think you could do better. TimidGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainstream science ignores the research because (i) mainstream scientists are not, with very few exceptions, doing any research on TM. The overwhelming majority of this research is being done by a handful of people all with ties to MUM and the M Org. and (ii) virtually none of it ever gets cited in any other research other than again, by the same small circle of TM-sponsored researchers. Reread WP:SET because is specifically warns that Google News and Google Scholar are not appropriate for what you propose - trying to weigh the relative prominence of one. I have proposed a metric for the research portion of this article: use only the studies which per WP:MEDRS are regarded as the most reliable - and that would be the handful of metastudies published in peer-reviewed jounals which have done the job that the editors here are frankly incapable of doing - determining which of the "hundreds" of "peer reviewed" studies on meditation were properly conducted and appropriately documented, and then assess whether or not they show anything significant. And, I am happy to stand by my edits and my history of achieving consensus whereever and whenever other editors are actually interested in consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem unfamiliar with how science works. Academic refereed journals take many tens of thousands of submissions each year. A small subset of those submissions are selected by the journals' publishers and editors, who themselves are typically recognized as experts in their journal's field of focus, for potential publication. The selected papers are then sent out for a detailed review to respected scientists who have been recognized for their publications in the subfield of the submitted paper. If the submitted research study is able to pass this critical peer review process, it is usually published. This is how science progresses. And acknowledging the careful academic filtering that this established process entails, Wikipedia looks to this peer review process for its highest level of reliable sourcing (WP:RS). Over the last 40 years there have been hundreds of peer reviewed research studies published on the physiology of TM. Every single one of these scientifically peer reviewed studies is considered higher RS than any publication that has not been peer reviewed (such as Otis), or which is not a study (such as Lazarus) or any popular (non-academically reviewed) newspaper, magazine or website articles.  Any attempted indictment of the validity and the reliability (WP:RS) of these studies (which have already been reviewed to the highest wikipedia RS standard) is nothing more than irrelevant opinion and an inconsequential attempt at original research, which is not allowed here. Duedilly (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Duedilly’s point about peer reviewed research being more trustworthy, according to WP:RS guidelines, than any non-peer reviewed article, newspaper article etc. is an important one. It has long seemed clear that some editors’ insistence on inclusion of the weak claims by Otis, Lazarus, and others is motivated more by their bias against the TM technique than by any desire to produce a neutral article. Something needs to be done to correct this. Attention to better research articles is one way to approach it. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult Issues Section
In this section we have the sentence:
 * "Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors." The reference for this is an article in the Washington Post (Group Says Movement a Cult, The Washington Post, Phil McCombs, July 2, 1987).

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

I am not sure how we can take this sentence and then come to the conclusion presented in the TM article that "those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors." This is a huge generalization from Hassan's statement. I propose that sentence be removed. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed above text. --BwB (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry BWB. I missed this or forgot about your concern. I think we need something in the article on cult, and this is a legitimate source. The points are a summary of the Post. I agree there is some extrapolation. We could to be more accurate and include Hassan's words as direct quotes. Since the article is already overloaded with quotes I'd orefer to stay with what's was in place, and which I just reverted.(olive (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I could certainly be wrong on this so open for further discussion.(olive (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I did look again at the section and I think you're right. It might be fine to remove this little bit. There seems to be a lot of material that comes from sources that specifically mention cult and TM, so I'd say we could remove this. Sorry for my hasty deletion.(olive (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

No problem, Olive. There are many threads running on this article and easy to miss some points. The Cult section need some serious overhaul. --BwB (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Further down this section, in the second-to-last paragraph, we find the sentence:
 * "Only those who clearly display their commitment and also belief in the movement - by employing its rhetoric and conceptual vocabulary."

This sentence seems to say nothing and go nowhere. Perhaps it can be removed? --BwB (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

REMOVED above sentence. --BwB (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * i dont understand why the WaPo material was removed. I've gone back to the source and added more material from it.   Will Beback    talk    21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL..Nice One... castle to bishop.. Is that a little weighty in terms of one source, perchance? Adds context though, one of my concerns and no longer extrapolates.(olive (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I've removed the heading, since this is a continuation of the same thread. The WaPo article contains a lot of information on the cult topic. Three sentences doesn't appear to be undue at all. There's more from the source we could add as well. If weight is really a concern we can move this material over to the article on the movement.   Will Beback    talk    22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the "dumping" article.(olive (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The wording which I think was mine originally was probably OR which I see now, but didn't in my earlier days on Wikipedia. There seemed to be lots of material in the section and this was an extrapolation rather than an accurate reference. I initially reverted the deletion but later felt there was enough well sourced material in the section with out it. You've add a lot of material, so the section probably needs a good session of scrutiny to see how things are in terms of WP:WEIGHT.(olive (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * We are under no contract to use as much of any source as possible because there's lots of it, we are however per Wikipedia, guided to include material per its ratio to the article as a whole and per its significance to the topic of the article which is not weighted per anyone 's opinion of what that weight might be.(olive (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * We are required to include all significant points of view, with the weight proportionate to their prominence.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of view has a hefty presence. We'll need to make sure not too hefty.(olive (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * If this article is solely about a meditation technique, then the cult allegations are entirely off-topic as is half of the article. That's why we need an article about the movement as a whole. I'll start drafting one next week.   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wherever cult ends up "weight" will have to be considered. In drafting your new article you might keep in mind how Wikipedia views the word "cult". (olive (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia isn't a source. You're proably thinking of WP:WTA. The idea there is that we shouldn't describe groups as cults when usiung the editorial voice. It doesn't restrict the coverage of cilt allegations. Like any article, a movement article should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.    Will Beback    talk    22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An article on the TM movement will be an interesting undertaking - almost 60 years of activity, numerous programs, world-wide influence, pros and cons. FUN!! --BwB (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mozambique
Perhaps something could be added to the article about the practice of TM in Mozambique? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/jamesastill --Uncreated (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a good idea. And this article provides some good data and quotes. --BwB (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mantra to reception section
Will originally suggested that the mantra used in the TM technique was  a controversial issue, so  I've moved the material to the reception section where it more obviously belongs. (olive (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Aren't mantras pretty much central to this technique? It'd be better to have the section on mantras cover al aspects, not just the criticism. Isn't there any non-critical material related to the topic?   Will Beback    talk    03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Transcendental Meditation is based on a natural tendency of the mind to go inward. In a sense, this is what's central. The mantra is used to initiate this inward direction, but the mantra isn't a focus. It's not unusual that during much of the practice, the person isn't aware of the mantra. The mantra is simply a meaningless sound used as a vehicle to prompt the inward direction of the mind. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but mantras aren't reception. They are, as TG says, the vehicle for TM. I'm going to move the material back.   Will Beback    talk    16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Leave Mantra in the Principles section or

Move Mantra to the reception section Please read the discussion on this topic before you leave an opinion. Thanks


 * Reception refers to controversy, and you yourself wanted mantras in the article because their use was controversial. The controversial aspects of the mantra use have nothing to do with the use of the mantra in the actual process. How the mantra is selected and what the mantra's sound is or refers to, is the controversy. I'd like to ask for input and consensus on this from other editors. I don't think this is a critical edit in that anything is being added or removed so I think its fair leave it to an agreement from the editors here on how to deal with this.(olive (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The scientific studies have also caused controversy. There are controversial aspects about every part of TM.   Will Beback    talk    18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Will is right. Taking olive's and timidguy's position to their logical conclusion, everything about TM belongs in "Reception", which is Wikipedia's code word for "Controversy" because everything about TM is controversial. But, that is an absurd basis on which to organize an article.  Information on the mantras belongs in Principles, right up near the beginning where it was.Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact despite Fladrif's stated position on TM, aspects of the article that just lay out information are not controversial. Can we extrapolate controversy from that information, sure. That a mantra is used in the technique and the technique is taught a certain way is not controversial . Extrapolations on that process and use of part of the technique have raised controversy. I am supporting moving controversy into one section of the article and leaving the base line non controversial information on how the technique is taught separate from that. The article is already set up to separate out controversy. I've added a bullet to Flad's post to make sure its clear that it states his position. Hope that's OK. (olive (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. The bullet point is fine. But, given that several editors asserted that something as simple as whether MMY started teaching TM in 1955 or 1957 was controversial, I'm not sure what information in the article isn't controversial at least to somebody. Fladrif (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For once, I'm in at least half agreement with Fladrif. The basic principle of how the mantras are used should remain under Principles, but the controversial aspects belong under Reception. It does seem that someone (and often it is just that, one or two people) has stirred up controversy over practically every aspect of the Transcendental Meditation program. That controversy should be mentioned in the article, even if it is not a widely held opinion. However, it should be made as clear as possible just how limited or widespread the controversy is. If there are no direct sources with which to make that comparison, then the only way to make it clear is to include more from the large number of sources who mention no controversy. In that regard, the article at present is highly imbalanced toward controversy. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Chem, Could you specifically state where you see that division occurring in the present text?(olive (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I am OK to leave the Mantra stuff where it is in the Principal section. However, I am not at all convinced that the information is presented in the best way. The points jump around and one is not sure what is being said or what the principals of the technique are. So I want to see the text cleaned up and organized better. And, yes, there are controversial elements in the text that also need to be addressed. But OK to have text in Principal section about the mantra that is appropriate there. --BwB (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to olive's question, I had not read that section for a while. It has changed substantially, and I agree with BwB that it is now highly disjointed. It's a mish-mash of ideas and is not currently presented as a controversy in the sense we are used to seeing, nor is it presented as a description of principles. I am particularly puzzled at some editors's choice to list what are purported by a disaffected teacher to be the mantras used in the TM technique. What is the point of that? If this source is correct, what is the value of seeing these enumerated? If the source is wrong, then why spread this disinformation? Could it be that the editor who placed this material there sought to sew confusion and doubt in the minds of those who practice the technique? That's what it seems like to me.


 * The whole section needs considerable work just to see what is principle and what is controversy. What I favor, for all WP articles except in the rarest of circumstances, is separation of the controversial issues and discussions from the non-controversial ones. There are many reasons for doing that, but this is not the time or place to enumerate them. The first step, based on the current material, is to sort it out into what is controversial and what is not. That needs to be done regardless of where the controversial material is presented. Once that has been done, then my preference is to keep the accepted principles where they are and to move the discussion of controversies to a separate section. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a fine spot to say why you think that all articles on Wikipedia should separate the controversies from the rest of the material since that is what you want to do here. There's also a movement to integrate critical materila into articles rather than segregating it, so there are views on both sides.   Will Beback    talk    04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think ChemistryProf makes an important point: regardless of where the material goes, we have to make clear that the deity thing is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. The principle of the technique is that the mantras are meaningless sounds. As Shear explains in his book, the technique wouldn't work if the mantra had meaning, since then the mind would remain on the level of the intellect rather than transcend to a deeper level. That's the principle. (By the way, I just noticed that passage from Beacon doesn't say that the mantras are the names of deities. It uses "of," suggesting that these sounds are used by deities. Also, do we know whether this is a translation from Hindi?) TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the problem. That doesn't appear to be the principle of the technique at all. The "official line" is not, if you read carefully, that the sounds are meaningless.  The "official line" is that the sounds are specifically selected for their effect, and that, in instructing new TM students, no meaning is assigned to the sounds.  Not telling a student the meaning of a mantra is a very different thing from saying the mantra is meaningless. And, it is clear from the sources that both the teachers of the technique, as well as students of advanced techniques, are well aware of the meaning of the mantras.Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand. Let's rework the current text in the Principal section. We can leave what is agreed as appropriate in this section, and then move any controversy to the Reception part (or both in the one section as Will suggests). Perhaps this will get a little "messy", so lets set up a sandbox for the new Principles section, and allow editors to work on it there. Let's try to be patient as we go along. We can take our time to try and get it right together. --BwB (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issues are based on understanding of what delineates the principles from the more controversial aspects. Unless we have a base line of common understanding chances of agreement are less.. Agreement seems to be to leave mantra content in place but with some editors suggesting we move what might be controversial. Is that correct, and is there agreement on that? (olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh and not meaning to cutoff BWB... just finishing what I started.(olive (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, I think Fladrif's reading is correct from the sources that I've seen -no meaning is attached to the sounds. My understanding is that whatever the sounds were originally connected to their usefulness was in their sound value alone, so the technique can be taught by using these sounds irrespective of whether meaning is attached to the sound or not. In fact attaching meaning to the sound is counter productive to the technique.


 * As an aside:
 * To put a western spin on this, the technique is based on the natural ability the brain has of shifting functioning modes. Artist/ actor/ dance teachers know that the so called logical  thinking brain must give way to a more holistic brain to optimize work in these art forms. Logical thought, (and naming something falls into this category), gives way to other kinds of thought until another kind of brain functioning takes over. A well know acting exercise consists of walking around a room looking at objects and throwing out any word that comes to mind rather than naming the object. I teach both the visual and performing arts and there are multiple exercises used in these fields to move to a non logical thinking but more holistic style functioning. As I understand it the TM technique is based on, and the results parallel this natural ability or tendency the brain has to move beyond logical thinking to the more holistic  awareness/ thinking mode. Of course the TM technique also takes the mind beyond all thinking altogether to the source of thought.  I understand that the choice of sounds for certain kinds of people in TM facilitates the process, but knowing the logical meaning of the sound would be counterproductive to the process since it would cause logical thinking to occur just when we are trying to "transcend " that kind of thinking. As well, logical thinking is still possible, and artists actors and dancers are extraordinarily alert and aware, its just they they aren't relying on logic but on a more intuitive form of functioning.  Logic is there, but it can take a back seat to the more holistic. I'm not a TM teacher but I've never seen literature that indicates anyone is ever told what the mantras mean ... and in fact I remember Markovsky saying in a document that may no longer be online because I can't find it, that the words could mean anything including wagon wheel, if I remember his example. Of course the advanced program, the TM Sidhi Program as we know from our own article uses sutras or threads so no gods there. .(olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I'm not sure where you're getting your "official line." In fact, TM teachers aren't taught that the sounds have meaning. Also, at no time is someone who learns TM or receives an advanced TM technique told that the sound has meaning. If by "advanced techniques" you mean the TM-Sidhii program, please realize that that technique is fundamentally different from TM in terms of procedure. In Malnak the plaintiffs alleged that the mantras were the names of deities, but affidavits submitted by the defense clearly refuted that allegation, forcing the plaintiffs to drop it. In any case, the principle of the technique is that TM takes advantage of the natural tendency of the mind to go inward. And the mantra, which is, in Maharishi's words, a "word devoid of meaning," facilitates that process. We need to make clear what the principles are and elaborate on them, and make clear that the claim that the mantras are names of deities is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My point, that the mantras are used independent of whatever meaning they might have comes from Shear (The Experience of Meditation) and as TG said is part of the debate about mantras. The official line has to be the Maharishis's quote and that should go into the actual "Principles of the technique" section. Shear also never says the mantras are the names of anything so that's a critical point in the debate on mantra.(olive (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Good start on reworking the Mantra section, Olive. I will give it some thought and attention in the coming few days. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have we agreed that the first goal is to separate the official principles from the controversy? It seems as if some editors never want to agree on anything. This makes progress difficult. If we can at least agree on that one, then both the discussion and the improvement of the article can move forward. As for the reasons for separating controversy into its own section, those require an introduction just to be clear. That is why I suggested this might not be the place for it. But if anyone wants to have my take on it, I’m happy to give that, and I’ll keep it as short as possible without losing the meaning altogether.
 * WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not? What do people use encyclopedias for anyway? Don’t they want the information to be reliable? And in any area that is technical or requires special training, don’t they want the best knowledge of those who have the most experience and training in the field? This is certainly what I want when I use an encyclopedia. In my first use of Wikipedia, and anytime I use it at all, it is for looking up the meaning of some method or technique, or occasionally to learn about a person or some concept I don’t know. The Southern Blot technique comes to mind. This example is from some years ago. My biochemistry training dates back to an early time, when this term was not in use. To find out what it refers to, I put the term into my search engine, and the WP entry was one of the prominent ones to pop up. Now if I thought the definition I was reading had been written by people who had mostly only heard of the technique second or third hand, without having had personal experience with it, I would be skeptical of whatever they wrote. I would not know whether to take it seriously. Same goes for biographies. If I thought the material was mainly representing the views of some critics or others who might harbor a dislike for the person, then I would immediately leave that site for something more authentic. Having now participated in editing a number of articles, I have become highly skeptical of WP. I use it as little as possible, and always try to back up what I read here with some independent source. If this encyclopedia is going to last, and to be worthwhile, the rules may have to change.
 * Going back to the question at hand, to get any use from a WP article, the reader needs to know that some aspects are clear and non-controversial, and he or she needs to know which aspects are generally accepted by the practitioners or experts in the field and which are considered to be controversial. He or she needs to be able to read the accepted principles in the field and then any controversy. That way, they can begin to decide if the controversy is something relevant to their needs. Since editors do not usually announce their areas of specialization, and since the casual reader would not know which editor is responsible for which portion, segregating off accepted principles from controversy is a way to get across some basic information first, then, if relevant, to communicate some of the controversy. Placing the controversy under one section title, perhaps named “controversy,” to be clearest, would increase the usefulness and reliability of WP articles. The reader can then decide how much attention to pay to controversy. In this way, controversy will be useful to some, but not to others, and each person will not have trouble seeing what the controversy is about and to see its sources. This will allow for easy use of the encyclopedia. If controversial understandings are peppered throughout an article, especially without being labeled as such, the article becomes useless. So the reasons for a separation into separate sections can be listed as: increased clarity; increased usefulness to the reader; increased reliability; increased ability of the reader to judge content; greater ease of editing; increased value for the lifetime of WP (which will eventually cease to exist if such policies are not followed). Can we agree on these basic ideas and sort out the text accordingly? ChemistryProf (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about another option? I read that these were supposed to be the TM mantras, but it is not accurate for mine. I know that the article is simply referencing a magaizine which claimed these were the mantras, but what proof do they offer or do we have?  We can't just add in every single thing that any magazine says about every single subject on wikipedai, especially when they don't offer any proof about what they claim. I think another option should be to either find a more reliable source like something official from the TM organization or at least a source that is accurate.  And until we find something like that, I think we should remove this section altogether. Some incorrect specultion on what the mantras are from a 30 year old issue of a defunct science fiction magazine does not justify including this in an encyclopedic entre (even if it is just wikipedia that no one is supposed to relie on anyway).  We should still strive to be encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.123.242 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on my suggestion to remove this section on mantras until a better source can be found? Here is what wikipedia says on reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Were the facts of the mantra list checked and confirmed by multiple people(or even by one other person)? The article doesn't claim that and the fact is that the list is inaccurate, so it certainly seems to me that the inclusion of this lits does not meet the criteria for reliability that an encyclopdeia should have.  Does anyone else see my point and agree? I propose we look for some official TM document that has the list of mantras that we can then link to.  Certainly there must be something findable on the internet? But until then, I think we should remove this section for lack of reliability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.123.242 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The mantras in TM come from an oral tradition and so the TM organization would not act against that tradition and either publish or verbally discuss the mantras.  We can safely assume that all TM teachers who take this tradition seriously and with respect would be unlikely to discuss the mantras . As the article indicates there is varying information on what the mantras are and none of them will or can be or has been verified in any official way as far as I know by the TM organization. Your point about scrutiny is well taken but I think the policy refers to the publishing house and the scrutiny publishers give to a book /journal . Yes the research is questionable but its very hard for Wikipedia to question that ....verifiability is an issue though . Still, there is  no way I know of to contest the various bits of information on what the mantras actually are. My preference would also to be to leave the mantras out since there is not truly official verifiable information on what they are from the organization, and I suspect we have incorrect information in the article . That's a guess . I'm not a TM teacher, and no TM teacher with respect for the tradition would reveal the information, so we have a "Catch -22" .(olive (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC))


 * In response to Unsigned, your logic is sound from my point of view, and I agree that it would be best to remove the list of purported mantras. In addition, as I said above, whoever inserted this list was most likely seeking to confuse the situation, since the effect of seeing the mantras, even if this list could be verified, is to cause confusion in the minds of anyone who may have gone through the instruction. It is specifically claimed in the instruction that the mantras are to be kept private. Violation of this instruction, especially something that cannot be verified to be true, could only cause a bad feeling or state of confusion in the mind of the person who has been instructed. This, however, is a point of lesser importance compared with the amount of confusion caused by not carefully listing the accepted principles and separating out the controversy. I'm glad someone is attempting to deal with that. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New Article: Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation
I have just created an article on this topic. Feel free to edit and contribute as you wish.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence out of place in History Section
The sentence "The records of the "Spirtual Development Conference" held in Cochin in October 1955 were published as "Beacon Light of the Himalayas". seems out of place in the history section. It appears without context.  It shoud either be removed, or give some context.  Now sure what the context is myself.  --BwB (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, I have amended the sentence. See what you think.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Principles of the Technique section
I've worked on this section to try and create a logical sequence of information, improving flow, hopefully. I've also added some comments from significant sources.(olive (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I didn't see ChemProf's comment above before starting on the Procedure section. (olive (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I like the way you have augmented, summarized and organized the section. I have done some clean up and a little further rearranging to improve the flow. What do others think?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 04:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this is improving and is starting to give a much better idea of the principles of the technique -- which the sources seem to summarize as 1) utilizing the natural tendency of the mind, 2) not involving effort, 3) using a meaningless sound, and 4) taking it as it comes. I added a couple headings for these principles and a few sentences of sourced material. We should maybe add a heading for that last point -- that one takes a passive attitude. Russell has a good discussion of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the first parts of the Principles section are becoming clearer and perhaps closer to what might be recognized as the official point of view. However, there is still not a clear demarcation between the official view from the teaching organizations and the opposing views of disaffected teachers. Nothing indicates the distinction between controversy and principles. If we do not put the controversial material under a separate section heading, we at least need to introduce it with a phrase or sentence and do not merely alternate between the "official" views and the "dissenting" views. This part is still confusing. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand your concern Chem, but we need to be careful not to turn this section into "brochure-ware". --BwB (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be my understanding of the situation: I don't think we can go into the article and create anything that says this is an official position unless we have a source from the organization that says this is an official position. We can source information on the topic of the article to the organization as we've done, and to Maharishi himself and the reader can take that as an official position if they want. For us to take material and select it as official would be a form of OR I would think . Controversy requires more than one view so I think what's happened in the article is that several sides of issues have been shown. Its possible to isolate controversial issues but I think there was a general agreement not do that with the mantra section. BWB is right I think . If we attempt in any way to create an official position we risk making the article sound like an advert. Your point Chem is well taken though in that there may be no clear distinction right now between principles and controversy. We do probably need to deal with that.(olive (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean editors were to decide what is official, but that if we could find descriptions from official publications or web sites of the organizations teaching the technique and present that first as the purported official position and then follow it up with the variety of other takes on the matter, always mentioning the source and its relationship, if possible, that would clarify the whole thing quite a bit. It may not be possible to find all the material we want from official sources, but if we could, that would then allow us to contrast the various other positions with that one, and readers could make up their own minds about which points of view to accept. If we just put in a mish-mash of ideas without properly giving the context, then how will anyone decide what it all means? ChemistryProf (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started to organize the material in that manner, somewhat, while trying to make sure its neutral. See What you think. (olive (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Both of you bring up good points. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We may end up with several levels, starting with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's own books, what can be found in other official statements, official web sites etc. Then from various others whose connection is clarified as much as possible. If the sources are not arranged in some fashion similar to this, the result will not be clear. Olive, I'll look at your work later today--no time now. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is reading better. It is more orderly and gives the first word about principles to the person (Maharishi) who introduced the technique. I agree that should come first. The next points are attributed to either many authors or some specific other authors (e.g. Russel, Teasdale). I would feel better if we said something about who each of these authors is. Who is Russel (just use a phrase from his bio perhaps)? And I have been wondering why we often seem to use the expression "The Maharishi" to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "Maharishi" is part of his name, just as "Albert" is part of Einstein's. The word maharishi literally means "great seer" or "great teacher", but to use the word in its impersonal meaning as a designation of the person seems inappropriate. When we refer many times to Albert Einstein, it is common to use only his last name. On the other hand, the millions of people who have learned Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation technique refer to him by his first name, Maharishi. This is unusual for others, perhaps, but it is the common usage in this case. To be correct, we ought to use either Maharishi or Yogi (less common, in this case), but not "The Maharishi." The latter usage is simply wrong. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of "the" Maharishi was a consensus-based decision and was applied across all TM -related articles. Sources use both Maharishi and the Maharishi. Although consensus is not a binding situation, I personally am reluctant to make a change on this unless we have  consensus with all editors who work consistently on these articles. In  the past positions were pretty clear on the matter.


 * Adding something about the authors maybe a subtle form of OR. It has been done in some places but I don't support it in an encyclopedia environment since the addition of this kind of information  can be unending. Who decides where to draw the line. And it also and has opened the door for POV editing. My opinions of course. (olive (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I just want to say I am very pleased with the new orderly feeling Olive has given to this section. It is actually starting to make sense and there is becoming much easier to read. As for "the Maharishi": if referring to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in this way this was determined by consensus I think it should be kept as is. It may be a bit unorthodox to some, but it's clear enough whom it's referred to and is not offensive to anyone. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that olive is a big help in making this a more respectable and balanced article, and her work is greatly appreciated. However, I would like some clarification of her comments above. It may have been an earlier consensus that it was ok to use "the Maharishi" as an alternate designation for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, but it still seems like a mistake. If Maharishi is his name, how can this expression be justified? Would we call Einstein "the Albert?" I don't think so. I missed the discussion of that issue and would like help in finding it. If the consensus was that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a "great seer" as I understand the name Maharishi to literally mean in Sanskrit, and it was agreed that editors should sometimes use that designation when referring to him, out of respect or for whatever reason, then wouldn't the proper use be "the maharishi?" As another alternative, if some editors feel it is wrong to refer to him by his first name, then why don't we use the last name, as in Einstein? I can see, however, that Yogi, his last name, also has a well known meaning and its use could in some cases lead to confusion. So maybe using the last two names, "Mahesh Yogi," would be preferable. I guess I'm just a stickler for having the details correct.
 * As for the other discussion, whether or not to add a few words to characterize the authors of quoted or paraphrased statements, it seems to me that its always a good practice to do this as part of building the context of whatever the author has said. WP guidelines encourage building context for each point, not just listing a series of statements from different sources. Something that gives insight into the specific credentials, history, or point of view of each author would be a good way to help build context. Just the opposite of what Olive said above, building context in this way prevents the statement of the source from being used in a manner that represents an editor's attempt to insert his/her biased point of view. Most users of encyclopedias don't have time or don't want to take time to dig out information on each source just to find out what the source's particular angle is based on. If we do not tell them, how will they know how to fit the pieces of the puzzle together? The reason I am belaboring this point at this time is that in reading the section under discussion, it is hard to determine where the "official" representatives of the principles leave off and the critics of the principles begin. We were trying to separate out purported official representatives of the principles, such as Mahesh Yogi himself and the accepted spokespersons for the organizations he founded, from the critics who have taken issue with these principles. Wasn't that what we were trying to do? ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding information about the authors can be and often is a form of POV. If this were a research paper this would be a different story. IF we move to a situation where we add info about authors we could also end up adding info about every author in every article/ book/ study .... how tedious for the reader. If we aren't consistent then POV can show up. As far as I've seen this is not an encyclopedic convention used in very many places except where a POV is attempted. So I'm not in favour of using it here in any way. (olive (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

I think you make some good points Chem about the use of Maharishi vs The Maharishi, but as I said what we have in place was the result of long discussion and consensus. There is no right or wrong on this, in my mind. The decision was based in part on the sources. Many sources use "the Maharishi", and use this as a title rather than a name. Maharishi is used as a name by those in the TM organization but not necessarily by others. The Maharishi is a more formal term. As well the Maharishi gives the article a less advert like quality, is less personal sounding, so is more neutral sounding. With Einstein if his name had been, great teacher Albert Einstein, than the way I'd see it, the examples would be parallel. At any rate a change would need agreement, and then the change would have to be instituted across all articles. If you think you'd like to reopen the discussion for agreement we can, as far as I'm concerned(olive (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC))


 * While I too see Chem's points, I feel Olive is right, and changing the terminology now, potentially affecting other names and authors in this article, is not worthwhile. I would not pursue this, but if others feel differently, we can obtain a new consensus on this topic.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Chem, I understand your point, and it has been brought up before. However, Maharishi is not a name, it it's a title like professor or president. So we say the Professor, the President, the Maharishi, in that way. Also the media refers to him as 'the Maharishi' and the article appropriately reflects that. Besides, 'the Maharishi' is the way my mother says it and according to the Beatles: "your mother should know". :-) --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 04:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b>, I will move on from this issue later today. We have spent too much time on it already. But I disagree about it not being a name. In this case it was most definitely used as a name. We might say "prince" is not a name, but some do use it as a name. In the same way, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used "Maharishi" as a name. That does not mean it cannot be used in other ways, but in his case, the story I have heard is it was the name given to him by his teacher, "Guru Dev," and he used it that way for the rest of his life. Please correct me if you have different information. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify: There are two issues; one is whether the usage we have agreed on in the past is an accurate way to name Maharishi (content editing concern) The other is that the change made to "the Maharishi" was consensus based.(collaborative process concern)  We should have  another consensus to change the name.(olive (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Not sure what is correct from Wiki perspective, but personally I dislike "The Maharishi" very much. Would much prefer to use "Maharishi" or "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". --BwB (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I have let go of this issue. If it has been discussed at length earlier and the conclusion was that "The Maharishi" is acceptable, I will not waste our time with more arguments. Our attention can be better spent on other, more problematic parts of the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Purportedly"
The word "purportedly" was just added. Why? Is there anything in this article that isn't purported?  Will Beback   talk    18:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the 1995 expanded addition of Conway and Siegelman's Snapping Point, Robertson, purportedly a teacher of Transcendental Meditation,... 


 * I think I understand your concern Chem but "purportedly" creates a POV in reference to the source since it in effect questions the source. All we can do is cite the source once we've decided its verifiable. I've reworded slightly and removed Robertson, a detail that seems awkward. I hope that solves the problem, Will.(olive (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks, that addresses my concern.   Will Beback    talk    20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not discussing this beforehand, and for letting my habitual scientific style of writing interfere with the encyclopedic style. In scientific writing, it is usual to state the evidence for claims, and terms like "self-identified" or "purported" are often applied in such situations in the absence of a more objective type of evidence. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize or to discuss every word change . Nice thing about collaboration is that many editors are watching and working to catch what someone else overlooks.(olive (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Lectures in English?
Just for the sake of curiosity, I wonder how we know the lectures Maharishi gave and which were then transcribed were in English. Paul Mason says in describing the lecture," For this audience of exclusively Indian composition..." I am surprised that he would address this kind of audience in English rather than a language native to them.(olive (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I can't put my finger on the source, but I did read that these lectures are not translated, they were given in English. When I recall it and find it, I'll supply a reference. But, what I find remarkable, and disturbing, is that KBob would simply add to the article that the lectures were given in Hindi, and translated to English, without any source whatsoever. It appears that he simply made it up. Why?
 * It should not be suprising that the speeches by MMY and many others recorded in Beacon Light were in English. It should not be suprising, when you think about it. Less than half the population of India speaks Hindi. The official and predomnant language of Kerala is Malayalam, a Tamil language.  Had MMY given his speeches in Hindi, it is less likely that he would have been understood by his audience than he would have been by delivering the speeches in English.Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This may have been the source I was thinking of Transcription and translation are two different things. To say that this is a transcription of a speech in English means that the speech was in English, not that it was translated into English from something else. I recall at least one other source that says that these speeches were in English. It will come to me eventually.Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's enough for me to see anyway. I guess a source never hurts. I am surprised since at that time India had just, as Mason says, come out from under the yoke of English rule, and Maharishi felt strongly about countries maintaining their own national integrity. Interesting  and thanks again for dealing with my question. (olive (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to remove the list of mantras
The mantras of TM are considered by the TM organization (MVED) to be private, confidential and proprietary and are given out one at a time when an individual pays the TM course fee or completely when a person enrolls in a TM teacher training course. Omni Magazine acknowledges this in their article. Therefore the mantras represented by Omni Magazine as the complete list of TM mantras, are non-free and proprietary content and are restricted by NFC, which states that non-free or copyrighted content are generally not to be used on Wiki.

Wikipedia clarlyy states that it frowns upon posting non-free content and states that it will go beyond the rules of copyright and fair use laws to avoid a violation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). Wikipedia does allow exceptions, but only in very specific instances and in as few cases as possible. Only when a number of specific criteria are met, may such an exception be made. The list of mantras given in Omni Magazine does not meet the Wiki criteria for an exception.

What Omni and Bainbridge did disseminated confidential and proprietary material considered by WP:NFC to be non-free content.

Wikipedia states that non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license may be used on the English Wikipedia only where 10 specific criteria are fully met. See for instance http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

A few of these criteria are met, but two of them are not:

1. Minimal usage. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". The listing of the Omni mantras in the article along with criteria for their selection and usage go well beyond minimal usage as described by Wiki.

2. Significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". A list of mantras does not in any way deepen the understanding of the reader a TM in a way that could not be achieved by a summary sentence or two describing the mantras and how they are selected according to various sources such as Omni, Bainbridge etc.

For the above reasons, I feel that the mantras should be removed, and replaced with an appropriate summary and description.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like an excellent rationale that should resolve this controversy nicely. David spector (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've written before, I don't think the mantras themselves need to be in the article. What appears important are the reports that there is a list and that they are assigned according to age.   Will Beback    talk    01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Luke makes some good points. There doesn't seem to be any definitive information on how the mantras are chosen/given so we can cite the different reliable sources on that point, as we are doing.(olive (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The argument that the TM Mantras are proprietary or trade secrets is utter nonsense. They are not copyrighted. They are not patented (indeed, the cannot be patented). One cannot simultaneously claim that MMY passed on a thousand-year-old-plus tradition of Vedic knowledge, and claim with a straight fact that it is a trade secret. The assertions are utterly inconsistent with one-another, with logic and rational thought, and with the fundamental principles as well as the letter of law of intellectual property around the world. This utterly baseless assesrtion has been repeated again and again in these talk pages. It's tiring to have to reread again and again the repetition of these nonsensical talking points. If, like TimidGuy, you're getting this stuff by running it past MUM's legal counsel, I feel sorry for the quality of legal representation that MUM must be getting. Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the others that the mantras themselves don't need to be in the article. Proprietary doesn't necessarily mean copyrighted or patented. It's a more general term. Yes, this knowledge has been around for thousands of years. But Maharishi's specific teaching is proprietary and confidential for specific reasons. Everyone who is trained as a teacher agrees to keep the information confidential. By definition, this is non-free content. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by definition, because it is not copyrighted, it is free content "free content [is] defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". I'm sick and tired of this persistent bad Wikilawyering where editors just invent rules out of thin air to advance their own agendas and POV rather than actually reading and understanding the process here. And while we're at it, what "specific reasons" are behind making this "proprietery and confidental"? And, while TM teachers may sign contracts promising not to reveal information about their training, there is no binding prohibition whatsoever against students revealing what they were taught, including their mantras, so it is nonsensical to claim that this is proprietary and confidential when it isn't confidential at all. Fladrif (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From Business Dictionary: "Proprietary information: Information that is not public knowledge (such as test results or trade secrets), conveyed by a manufacturer to an external party due to its position in the procurement process. The recipient is generally duty bound to desist from making unauthorized use of the proprietary information." In the business world, proprietary information is usually protected under "trade secrets" law. The laws governing trade secrets are upheld in the courts just like copyright and patent laws. I do not know for certain that non-profit educational institutions such as those responsible for teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique are handled by the courts in a manner similar to businesses, but I would guess they are. If so, not only are the particular mantras used by these institutions protected, so are any rules for selection or methods of giving out the mantras and the technique. Purchasers of this service are duty bound to secrecy just as the instructors are. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting from the Wikipedia policy on "free content", which is what the claim is here. It is utter nonsense to claim that the mantras are proprietary information or trade secrets. There are absolutely no cases of the TM Org successfully suing any person or publication for disclosing the TM Mantras, including Omni. There is good reason for that; the TM Org would have zero chance of having its position upheld by any court. As for your claim that purchasers of TM instruction are "duty bound to secrecy", "duty bound" is not "legally bound". Can you provide proof of a legally binding confidentiality and nondisclosure contract that any TM student is party to? There is none, which I suspect you know. So, this argument is factually baseless.  IN fact, not even the initiator oath for TM teachers (at least as of the time of Malnak, in which it is an exhibit) was a nondisclosure agreement - it was a non-compete. So, even if that contract changed in the meantime, as of the time the Omni article was published, there was no legally binding nondisclosure agreement prohibiting any TM instructor from disclosing the mantras or the manner in which they were chosen. Fladrif (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think its clear from the Omni article itself that this information is considered by the TM Org to be private, confidential and proprietary. That is why they have trademarks for their technique and why they utilize agreement forms and contracts in their courses. Listing the mantras does not give any extra benefit for the reader except to make the article a meditation "how to" article, which is prohibited by Wiki WP:NOHOWTO, I think that as Will has stated, we can certainly convey to the reader the necessary information in a summary format without listing specific mantras and ages etc.  So for the sake of the reader and to protect Wiki from potential damage. I think they should be removed. The WP:NFC guideline is mainly for copyright infringements but it also applies to other non-free content as well, such as trade secrets etc. So for all of these reasons I support removing the list of mantras and ages.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When someone learns TM there is an Agreement they sign that requires them to keep things private. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point BwB. The claim here is not that mantras are copyrighted, but that they are private and confidential information intended to be kept secret. Since Wikipedia's standard for non-free content is stricter than those of intellectual property law, and since there is no compelling reason to display such information (as I said before, the section would be just as informative with a general description of mantras and their purpose), it would be better to remove them. It seems to me most editors are comfortable with this idea, should we have a vote? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please excuse the following long insert from the USLegal (Definitions) website, but it explains the legal context that defines proprietary information and how a business needs to act to maintain that definition. As I said before, I am not sure it applies to non-profits, but I would bet that it does. So we are on solid ground in referring to the mantras and method of instruction as confidential information protected by law.


 * "Proprietary information, also known as a trade secret, is information a company wishes to keep confidential. Proprietary information can include secret formulas, processes, and methods used in production. It can also include a company's business and marketing plans, salary structure, customer lists, contracts, and details of its computer systems. In some cases, the special knowledge and skills that an employee has learned on the job are considered to be a company's proprietary information."
 * "Federal legislation came into effect in 1996 with the enactment of The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA). The EEA was in part modeled on The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), a model law drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws but expands UTSA's definition. The EEA definition of trade secret follows from Section 1838, paragraph (3):
 * "[T]he term 'trade secret' means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if—


 * "(A) the owner therefore has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and


 * "(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public[.]"


 * "With the passage of EEA, trade secrets now enjoy protection under federal law as do inventions through patents, creative works through copyright, and unique names and symbols through trademark legislation. In addition, 39 U.S. laws also define trade secrets in various ways and define the conditions under which theft has taken place. Based on such laws a significant body of case law covers proprietary information and trade secrets. This legal framework recognizes a company's right to have proprietary information and provides the company with remedies when its trade secrets have been misused or illegally appropriated."


 * I vote to remove both the mantras and the purported method of choosing them, both of which appear most likely to be legally defensible as proprietary information. Certainly they fit the WP definition of confidential that was alluded to above. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Even this IP editor, a few days ago posted and expressed his/her desire that the mantra list be removed:
 * [How about another option? I read that these were supposed to be the TM mantras, but it is not accurate for mine. I know that the article is simply referencing a magaizine which claimed these were the mantras, but what proof do they offer or do we have? We can't just add in every single thing that any magazine says about every single subject on wikipedai, especially when they don't offer any proof about what they claim. I think another option should be to either find a more reliable source like something official from the TM organization or at least a source that is accurate. And until we find something like that, I think we should remove this section altogether. Some incorrect specultion on what the mantras are from a 30 year old issue of a defunct science fiction magazine does not justify including this in an encyclopedic entre (even if it is just wikipedia that no one is supposed to relie on anyway). We should still strive to be encyclopedic.]

It is clear therefore that we have a strong and clear consensus to remove the mantra list. For this reason I have just now removed the list. I think this protects Wikipedia without compromising the Wiki reader.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You got there before I had time to comment on the removal. Luckily, I support the consensus to remove the list of Omni mantra list.  --BwB (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying your position and agreeing that we have consensus. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, sorry about deleting the Omni footnote, that was not intentional. Thanks for correcting it and adding the point about ages.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
This article has way too many quotes. So I'm in a bit of a quandary. I think the source for the Lennon quote is weak, since it doesn't say where it's from and gives no citation. Lennon also said that meditation is good. After leaving India he said "the meditation is good and it does what they said. It's like exercise or cleaning your teeth — it works." A year later he said "I don't regret anything about meditation. I still believe it and occasionally use it." This is from the Beatles Anthology. I'm tempted to add these quotes, but that just exacerbates the problem. I think we should just delete all the quotes. That section is out of balance — three negative and two positive, yet many more celebrities have praised TM than have said negative things about it. I could probably find dozens of quotes. Even the Seinfeld quote could be elaborated, since he said specifically how TM has helped him. Rather than get into dueling quotes, we should just delete them. Otherwise the only option is to start adding more of the positive ones -- David Lynch, Heather Graham, Ringo Starr, Mike Love, Donovan, Hugh Jackman, Howard Stern, Sheryl Crow, Stephen Collins, etc. TimidGuy (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree we should either summarize them or remove them. Removal is probably the best bet.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the basic problem with quotes in these articles. The TM-Org affilated editors systematically refuse to agree on any text that attempts to summarize anything anybody writes, and so they insist that the only way to "accurately" reflect the source material is to quote it. And, then, suprise!, a few months later, when they hope that everyone has conveniently noticed that the only reason the quotes are in there is because of their own obstreperousness, and that they inserted the quotes themselves, they complain that there are too many quotes, it gives the quoted material excessive weight, and it needs to all come out.  It happens again and again and again. TimidGuy is far and away the worst offender in this regard, with Olive close behind. Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolute rubbish, and a personal attack.(olive (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC))
 * No, it's absolutely and completely accurate, and as it is discussing one of the persistent and recurring pattern of edits on these pages, it is not a personal attack at all, nothwithstanding that you are one of the authors of that disturbing patterns of edits. Fladrif (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, you have raised a good point, but I don't think it applies to this particular instance. The negative quotes were placed by 7th and there was no attempt by him or other editors to summarize. Instead other quotes were added by me and others for balance. So maybe now its time to summarize them. In previous discussion in August, Will said he was in favor of a summary ie some celebrities like their TM and others don't. Something simple, rather than a quote war.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are correct about these particular quotes coming mostly from 7th. I was speaking to a wider issue and problem. But, confining ourselves to the narrow and immmediate issue, I happen to agree that it adds little or nothing to the article to have what amounts to a list of "pro" and "con" quotes from various celebrities about their affection for or disaffection from, TM.  I wouldn't even bother to try to summarize them. When you boil it all down, what does it really say? "A bunch of people whose names you recognize for reasons completely unrelated to the subject-matter say nice things about TM, and a different bunch similarly-situated people say negative things about TM?"  Even in summary form it's absurd. Fladrif (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. We could also consider taking the quotes out altogether. That was Timid Guys original suggestion and I would not be opposed to it. What do other editors think?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially in this case where so many and varied quotes are available, I could see an ongoing war of quotes if we try to leave them in. It seems wisest just to leave them out. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Timid Guy has removed the quotes per consensus.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)