Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 26

Summarize This Quote
Today I attempted to summarize this quote which I placed in the article some weeks back. However, my edit was reverted by Fladrif so I am bringing the issue to the talk page. Here is the current sentence with quote: I suggested the following substitution: Comments? suggestions? revisions? -- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to physicist Lawrence Domash, Chancellor of Maharishi European Research University, describing how meditation works is like "trying to explain the innards of a color television set to a tribe of Pygmies. What you can do is tell the Pygmy how to switch on the set and tune in to a station so he can enjoy the program."[13]
 * According to physicist Lawrence Domash, chancellor of Maharishi European Research University, it is easier to learn the TM technique than it is to explain how it works; it's easier to learn how to operate a TV set than to understand what's inside it
 * And, this is what the source says: "How do you meditate? According to Physicist Lawrence Domash, chancellor of the Maharishi European Research University in Weggis, Switzerland, describing meditation is like 'trying to explain the innards of a color television set to a tribe of Pygmies. What you can do is tell the Pygmy how to switch on the set and tune in to a station so he can enjoy the program.'" As I said in the Edit Summary, I don't think that you have inaccurately intepreted the meaning that Domash was trying to convey, although I would venture that there is a deeper implication to the analogy he draws, for the clear implication of the analogy is that the reporter and the readers would be incapable of comprehending an explanation of how TM works because of a lack of necessary background in the culture and science  But - and I'm not being obstructionist about this simply because I think that other editors have been unreasonable in refusing to reach agreement on how to summarize source material - he didn't say that its easier to teach TM that to explain how it works, he used a simile/analogy and he doesn't provide any exegesis. So, any "interpretation" is necessarily original research, so this is one instance where I'm stumped as to what you can do other than quote the source.  To be frank, I don't have any idea what this excerpt is supposed to add to the article anyway.Fladrif (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good comments Fladrif. We could consider just removing the entire sentence. That is certainly an option. What do other editors think?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 01:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fladrif that the paraphrase of the quote does not fully capture the meaning. It's an interesting quote, but if its correct interpretation is not obvious and if it does not clearly add to the section where it occurs, then leave it out. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's another good opportunity to reduce the number of quotes. TimidGuy (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I am removing the entire sentence as per consensus here.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link
This citation link is dead. If someone can revive it, it can be put back in the article. Meantime I found a new reference to the Gallup poll which I added and adjusted the sentence to reflect the new source. <-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While the normal protocol for a dead link is supposed to be to leave the link but tag it, finding this new link solves a problem that has been nagging me ever since I added the link to the Gallup Poll. The poll's conclusions can't possibly have been right, at least not the way George Gallup was quoted in the now-dead newspaper article. How can 6 million people in the US have been practicing TM in the mid-1970s when only approximately 1 million had been taught it, at least "officially". Either there was something wrong with the sample or the model, or 5 people got "unauthorized" TM instruction for every person who got the official version. I'm inclined to think that there was some of that, or maybe even a lot of it, but 5:1 seems an improbable ratio. To say 4% of the sample, instead of 3% of the entire population, was involved in TM seems less inplausible.Fladrif (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I researched the dead link and could not find that exact source under any new web links. But just in case I put it here in case someone more creative than me could find a source. I also agree with you that both reported Gallup Poll results whether it be 3% or 4% seem implausible. Not sure what to do about that though. Any ideas?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source you found said 4% of the sample. That seems perfectly plausible to me - the random sample may simply have over-represented people who learned TM. What isn't pausible is to conclude from that data that 3% of the entire US population - 6 million people - were practicing TM at the time. So, I don't think that we need to do anything further with this material or source; it's fine as-is.Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK -- — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Replace Beacon Quote with Secondary Source
Per the various discussions on this page and on the RS noticeboard about the Beacon Light source, I think we all recognize that it is a self published document. As such, it does not qualify as an independent source, however it can be used as a supportive source. Furthermore, we seem, as group to be recognizing that extensive quotes in an article are not something Wiki generally supports and we are actively working together to correct that. With this in mind I have removed the Beacon Light quote and replaced it with text from a reliable secondary source and left the Beacon citation there as a supportive source for the new sentence which reads as follows: Please note that I did not try to summarize the quote from BeaconLight but rather I followed closely the wording from the new source which directly addresses the Beacon Light topic of mantras and deities. I hope that everyone finds this satisfactory. If not, we can discuss it here and then adjust accordingly.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "In a speech the Maharishi gave in Kerala, India, in 1955, he mentions a connection between the mantras and personal dieties and occasionally similar references can also be found in his later works. [48][49] More commonly he describes the mantras as working automatically."[50]


 * Kbob. I may be missing something but I don't see a reference to deities in Gurus in America. Could you point me to that page.Would the second sentence you added be OR since the source doesn't say this or does it...Sorry just not seeing it.(olive (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

Good question. Here is the direct quote from the source, Gurus in America, p 63 In the book, there is no space between these two sentences: PS I just checked the ref and I had listed the page as 65 not 63. So that's why you couldn't find it. I have corrected it now. Sorry for the error.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * “In Maharishi’s 1955 speech, he mentions a connection with personal deities in the mantras, and occasionally one can find similar references in later works. However, more commonly he describes the mantras working automatically.”
 * Thanks Excellent Kbob.(olive (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to Remove MUM Lawsuit
The MUM lawsuit regarding a tragedy that occurred at the university, named MVED as a co-defendant. However this was rejected by the courts and all allegations and charges in regard to MVED, the organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation, were dropped. The court found no grounds for any culpability on the side of MVED. In light of this I see no reason why this law suit should be mentioned in this article and I would like to propose that it be removed.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. Since this article is about TM and MVED is the organization responsible for the TM program in USA and the charges were dropped against MVED, then perhaps it could be removed.  --BwB (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to keep this section, then I suggest we remove the word "alleged" from the sentence "The alleged perpetrator...." Was it not established that "the alleged perpetrator" was the perpetrator?  --BwB (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear that whoever put this information in the article in the first place was seeking to discredit Transcendental Meditation. If MVED had been found culpable and it had been found at fault by the court, then perhaps it would have a place in the article. Otherwise, the whole mention of this case should be dropped. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After 7 days there doesn't seem to be any objections, so I am going to proceed with the edits.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Tags
I have removed the Quote Farm tag from the top of the article since we have all worked together these past few weeks to either summarize or remove excess quotes. There are still two tags remaining at the top of the article: Can we make a list of items that need to be fixed in order to remove these remaining tags? --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is disputed, from Jan 2008
 * Possible improper references to self published sources, from July 2009

Congratulations
I hope no one minds if I congratulate the current set of lurking editors. This article has a history of edit wars between editors with strong personal opinions that influenced their decisions, instead of their using rational, objective decision-making. The recent sensible resolution of several long-standing disputes is a breath of fresh air around here. The article, although still burdened by a great deal of unnecessary and, IMO, unreasonable negativity, is in perhaps the best shape it's ever been.

I personally feel that this article is of unusual importance because Transcendental Meditation is one of the most significant and useful areas of knowledge that the world is blessed to have received; I've practiced TM twice a day for 40 years and have found it to be remarkably effective in refreshing me and eliminating daily stresses, as well as indispensable in helping me cope with the deaths of loved ones and other personal tragedies.

For these reasons I feel moved to thank those good editors who have hung in there even when they or their editing choices were repeatedly attacked. David spector (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David, for your kind comments. TimidGuy (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Every editor stands on the shoulders of those that have come before them. Wiki is an ever-changing collaboration of personalities and likewise its articles are in a constant state of flux and (we hope) evolution. I agree with you Dave, that all the Wiki editors deserve a pat on the back for working together to create a free encyclopedia for the world to have access to. Congrats to all!--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural Stress Relief
I'm interested to see NSR added as a "see also". Are we open to add other meditation techniques to the see also as well? The list could be endless. How do we draw the line? As well NSR in the see also section is a spam link in the NSR article since it actively sells the technique on the site linked. Do we assume something is related because the site says it is? Is that reliable? NSR is a single mantra technique. How is that like TM which by all accounts seems to be a multiple mantra technique? Is this a bag of snakes we really want to open?(olive (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Visited the NSR article. TM is mentioned once in the article. It says something like: "NSR is an alternative to TM". That's it. This NSR link is just as arbitrary as the KSCI link we removed sometime back. I have added several links to the list that relate to TM and do not have an internal link in the article. Once we decide what our criteria is for being on the See Also list, we can edit the list accordingly--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I mistaken that NSR is a derivative of TM?   Will Beback    talk    21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there's no point in adding items to the "see also" that are already in the navigation template.   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This book seems to say they are basically related, along with somethng called Primordial sound meditation.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These are good points Will. We should keep in mind that the See Also section is a group of links to articles within Wiki and at the present time, the Wiki article on NSR does not have any relevance to this article except that it says that it was "developed as an alternative to TM". In addition, this statement is not referenced and could be POV or OR. I have placed a Ref Tag on the article, so maybe some editors will add sources. On another point: since we already have many related articles linked within the text of this article and since we have a navigation template with many other relevant articles, maybe we should just delete the See Also section? What do others think? --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many meditation techniques are related. Are we going to link them all to tbis article. Should we link all of the TM articles to the NSR article then. We had a very productive editing/discussion period with Ronz in which for the sake of simplicity we pared down the see also sections on this article. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble accessing the archives (very strange). I wanted to link to that discussion. It might be a good idea to continue along those lines. (olive (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, I think it would make sense to add related meditation techniques. I don't know why we'd link to NSR from other TM-related articles, such as the one about the prep school.   Will Beback    talk    19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any idea how long that lost would be? Who decides where the dividing line is between what is included and what isn't. What would that dividing line be? Extremely nebulous criteria. I'm talking about linking TM from NSR ... in the NSR "see also".(olive (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Do we not use the "See Also" section to link to articles that add something to article where the link originates? I cannot see what we would want to link to NSR.  It adds nothing to the readers understanding of TM.  --BwB (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what WP:SEEALSO says:
 * A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. Thus, although some links may not naturally fit into the body of text they may be excluded from the "See also" section due to article size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Portal links are usually placed in this section.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kbob. My point would be and its only an opinion based on past discussions about this section, that there are probably hundreds of meditation types, including Christian forms,  and prayer  that are all at the very least peripherally related, and in some cases have actually been compared to TM.  We include one and we include them all possibly, and if we don't we risk multiple discussions about where the line is that separates those that should be in the article and those that don't. If this were an article on Meditation in general then the door we open could be opened wide. I'll go with whatever the group decides but these are my concernsolive (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I concur with Olive's concerns. Let's just eliminate the "See Also" section all together.  --BwB (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Will's astute comment that we shouldn't have links in the See Also section that also appear in the navigation bar, I have removed several links from the section. There are still 5-6 that remain. That said, I feel that topics related to TM are already touched on in the article. I count 6 links in the text of the article that directly relate to TM ie. Maharishi, MUM, Orme-Johnson etc. Then there are also 11 links in the navigation bar at the bottom of the page. In addition there is a category bar just below the Nav Bar and by clicking on TM I get links to 21 related articles and sublinks to 20 more. So maybe its better to continue to utilize these three formats for linking to related articles rather than creating yet a fourth one ie the See Also section.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As president of NSR Meditation/USA, I would like to make a few comments about NSR. We are only 3 years old, and our parent organization (Istituto Scientia in Italy) is only about 6 years old. For this reason, there exists as yet no array of reliable references in books or news articles. There is an article Natural Stress Relief, but I did not write it, so it has some minor inaccuracies. It also fails to mention our second published paper (ref: Natural stress relief meditation as a tool for reducing anxiety and increasing self-actualization, Fabrizio Coppola, PhD, and David Spector, in Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, May, 2009, 37(3), pages 307-312). Although NSR is not a modified form of TM, NSR was explicitly developed to be an alternative to TM, since the developers (Istituto Scientia) recognized TM as being the most successful and effective of the techniques they examined. Although I know this to be a fact, there is as yet no independent "reliable source" to cite for it. The virtue of NSR is that our research shows it is as effective as TM in reducing anxiety and increasing "self-actualization", yet costs about 1/50 the price of TM and contains little or no mysticism. Unfortunately, the dearth of reliable references is a problem for inclusion in WP. WP is not a forum for OR or self-promotion. While I see a reason to retain the NSR article (because NSR actually exists, and has about 2000 clients worldwide), I find it hard to justify a link from the TM article, due to the lack of independent and reliable references. I hope this information helps. David spector (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks David. I will remove the link to NSR from the TM article. --BwB (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Course Fee Controversy
Will and David have indicated that they feel that the 'controversy' surrounding the TM course fees needs to be part of the article in order for us to remove the Neutrality tag. I am starting this thread so we can discuss how to accomplish that. Any thoughts on these points?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first thing we need is sources, so we'll need to research to find secondary sources that discuss the course fee both the pro's and con's. Here are some links. I gathered these quickly and have not read them. So please evaluate them and locate others.
 * Secondly we need to decide how to report the course fees in the article. It would seem rather awkward to discuss the fees without saying what they are. We also can't cherry pick the highest or the lowest fee and probably will need to mention that TM offers scholarships too. So the challenge is how to do all that without making the article sound like an advertisement.
 * Why would we exclude the highest and lowest fees?   Will Beback    talk    20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. I was saying we don't want to list all the fees but we also don't want to list just the highest fee or just the lowest fee. So may want to say the fees range from $500 to $5000 or whatever. Just bringing up this issue, for consideration as I know there was discussion about it before.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a number of references to the fee issue in a newspaper archive, buit it's difficult to search for them. I'll try to compile relevant excerpts in the next day or two.   Will Beback    talk    21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to be charging ahead on this without any evidence that this is significant area that needs to be included. The thread heading says this is controversial. I don't see much evidence to indicate that this is significantly controversial. We've had course fees move in and out of this article so many times its starting to feel like a tennis match. Why are we adding course fees again?... I don't see any rational for any of this except opinion.(olive (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Controversies often concern opinions. Let's assemble the sources and give the matter the weight it deserves based on those. If we can't find any sources then we won't add it.   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant our opinions. Sure we can look at sources and see what needs to be done or which direction to go.(olive (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes that was my thinking also, to get the sources together and see what we have. If there is a controversy about the fee that is well documented in reliable sources than it may well warrant inclusion in the article. Until we see the sources I have no opinion either way.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If this helps, I've gotten feedback from many of my NSR Meditation clients that they initially wanted to learn TM, but when they learned that the TM course fee was too much for them to afford, they searched the Web and found NSR/USA. They subsequently found that NSR provided them with the benefits that they had originally hoped to get from TM. I mention this as evidence (although not published evidence) that the TM course fees are de facto an important aspect of the TM program. These high fees keep people from learning TM. This is perhaps the main reason that Istituto Scientia invented NSR in 2000-2003. (MMY always said that everyone should learn TM, but when he got older, he stated on a number of occasions that only rich people demonstrated sufficient intelligence and accomplishment to deserve TM; he stated this as a reason to raise the fees to a level that would be respected by those who are wealthy.) David spector (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not right David, but this isn't the place. As well,  the subject mater must be considered significant in terms of  sources to be included in a mainstream encyclopedia. (olive (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * FYI, I've started compiling newspaper clippings related to fees at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. i recall we discused this matter before and at that time I'd found some book sources, so I'll find those again and add them. Anyone else is also welcome to add sources they know of.   Will Beback    talk    00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am against spending too much time on the TM course fees issue (of course other editors are welcome to spend their time as they wish) because fees are a moving target. A couple of years ago TM cost $2500 for a working adult.  Then the fee was reduced to $2000.  Earlier this year it was again reduce to $1500 for the summer months as a special offer.  This "offer" has now been extended indefinitely.  New course fees have been introduced for children, students, etc.  More people (I've heard) have learned TM in the last 6-9 months than in previous years.  So fees will come and go.  If we publish a list of fees and write lots of text with pro and con views on the TM fees, when the fees change again (as I think they inevitably will), the article will have to be rewritten.  If we want to include some text on TM fees, perhaps we can write something generic like "Over the years, there have been criticisms of the high cost to learn TM",, or something like that, but not give it much attention.  --BwB (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has proposed adding a list of fees. Let's compile the sources and then summarize what they say on the topic. It may be somehting like what you propose, or it may be longer, depending.   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the topic? In looking at the sources compiled what I see are articles that discuss finances in one way or another. I sense that something is being implied in this whole discussion. If we want to provide a section on the controversy surrounding the fees, then we need the fees and we need a source that says the fees are controversial. We can't collect articles on finances assume controversy, by say, for example, creating a heading that says controversy and then adding all of these articles on finances under that heading. That's OR  and creates an editor-created POV. A  thought....(olive (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Agreed Olive. Let's not make a mountain out of mole hill.  There are critics of the price of a loaf of bread.  --BwB (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an effort in progress. Doing research often means sifting through a lot of wheat and chaff.   Will Beback    talk    21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes ... not meaning to denigrate the efforts at all. In the comment to BWB there seemed to be a slant of some kind I wasn't aware of. So no worries, we'll see what turns up. (olive (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm happy to be part of the process. --BwB (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree we need some good references about the course fees being "high" relative to other types of meditation instruction. While there are higher course fees (such as those of Star's Edge International), I'm reasonably sure that most other meditation instruction is cheaper. Some organizations offer meditation instruction for free.


 * Of course, not all kinds of meditation are as efficient or effective as TM, and not all have similar validation through peer-reviewed research. But NSR Meditation, for example, charges only about $50 for comparable but do-it-yourself instruction in transcending, and TM-Independent (UK), which claims to teach TM, has a sliding-scale course fee that claims to be 50% or less than that of the TM organization.


 * These comparisons help to show why so many people who want to learn TM cannot do so on account of its expense. All interested editors should recognize that the cost issue is a very important aspect of TM and has been so for some years. Friends of mine who are still teaching TM say that there are few students coming in for instruction. High course fees (even though no longer $2500 in the USA) are clearly one reason for the failure of the TM organization to fulfill MMY's dream of making TM accessible to everyone.


 * In summary, I believe that the high course fee for TM is relevant to the article. The only difficult part is finding a way to word the high course fee problem, and to find and add appropriate references, in a way that is suitable for an encyclopedia. David spector (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we have an indication from a significant number of reliable sources indicating that  a controversy surrounds the course fees then it should be included. If not then our opinions on the matter while interesting  aren't really reason for including the information. Of course we have to decide what is meant by significant.(olive (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Have to agree with olive here. Our opinion is not reason enough to include the controversy on course fees.  There has to be significant discussion of it in the press.  Again, I suggest a sentence or 2 like "Over the years there has been some feeing that the TM course fees were too high...", back up by credible references.  Otherwise, lets just forget about it.  --BwB (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe Will would like to propose some text based on the sources he has compiled.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

School Programs
I have created a subsection called School Programs in the article utilizing existing text and adding a few things also. I included school programs from around the USA and the world to round out the sub topic. Please feel free to edit it or if you have significant concerns please bring them to the talk page so we can discuss and make adjustments as needed. Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A good step Kbob. There's a lot of information in the press on thr TM technique in the schools and in education so this new section is a good step.(olive (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Physiological effects compared to relaxation
Under the section by this name there is a paragraph about the research of Michaels and colleagues. I have been reading the other fascinating research in this area and would like to change the paragraph substantially to reflect this other research. The work of Michaels and colleagues is largely refuted in other studies, and my guess is it is due primarily to the small number of subjects used in her studies. It is always risky to draw conclusions of "no difference" based on small numbers. The numbers she used were likely not of sufficient statistical power to observe any differences, even though differences may have been there. What I have written is longer--two paragraphs instead of one--but gives a more complete and balanced reflection of the research literature on this key claim concerning this meditation technique. Here are the two paragraphs I would like to substitute for the existing one.


 * "In the late 1970s, Michaels and colleagues at the University of Michigan looked at changes in stress-related biochemicals during a practice session of the Transcendental Meditation technique. Comparing 12 practitioners of the technique with 12 sex- and age-matched non-practitioner controls, they reported that changes in the plasma levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and lactate during the practice did not differ statistically from those during a resting period in controls. A second study, comparing 8 young male practitioners with 8 young male controls, found no statistically significant differences for cortisol, aldosterone, renin, or lactate between the meditation period in practitioners and a rest period in controls. Based on these results, the authors concluded that the meditation technique has no significant effect on stress-related biochemicals. A similar experiment conducted at the same time (1978) found results with cortisol that contradicted the result of Michaels. Jevning and colleagues, from the University of California at Irvine, reported a statistically significant difference between 15 long-term (3-5 year) practitioners of the technique and 15 controls, with cortisol dropping during the meditation period, as opposed to no change in the resting controls. The controls then learned the technique and were retested after 3-4 months of regular practice. Their cortisol decline during meditation was intermediate between that of the long-term group and the original measurement during rest. In another study contradicting conclusions of Michaels and colleagues, Infante and co-workers from the Reina Sofía Hospital in Spain reported that regular practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique by 19 advanced practitioners resulted in plasma levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine in the mornings and norepinephrine in the evenings that were statistically significantly lower than found in 16 non-practitioner controls. In another study contradicting the results of Michaels et al., Dillbeck and Orme-Johnson reported in a statistical meta-analysis of multiple studies that blood lactate was one of the substances reduced by the technique compared to periods of eyes-closed rest. "


 * "In 1997, another stress-related study, a random-assignment, prospective study by MacLean and colleagues at Maharishi University of Management and the University of Iowa, measured resting levels of cortisol and cortisol changes in response to laboratory stressors in 16 young males randomized to the technique and in 13 randomized to learn about stress and how to avoid it. Cortisol levels at baseline (the period just prior to exposure to stressors) showed a statistically significant decrease in the Transcendental Meditation group after 4 months of meditation practice but not in the comparison group after 4 months of stress education. The response of cortisol levels to laboratory stressors, on the other hand, showed a statistically significant increase in the meditation group after 4 months, compared to a lack of change in the comparison group. These authors concluded that these results suggest repeated practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique reverses effects of chronic stress."

Feedback requested. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My feedback: In the early days of research on a topic, studies are sometimes contradictory. This can be the result of statistical or experimental variability, weakness of the effect being measured, or poor experimental design due to issues such as conflict of interest, poor funding, or the use of graduate students. TM research has been conducted for only about forty years; given the lack of involvement of big players such as the pharmaceutical industry or NIH for most of that time, it is not surprising that some TM research topics do not have high-quality, replicated results. Choosing which of a set of conflicting research results is the most nearly correct is difficult even for trained scientists in the specific areas of the research, much less for us intelligent but non-specialist WP editors. WP should report the truth: that in some areas, TM studies differ in their conclusions (or, are equivocal), while in other areas, the studies replicate well. David spector (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, David, for the additional points of explanation. Do I understand correctly from your discussion that you approve of substituting these paragraphs for the existing one, as a way of achieving a more balanced presentation of this important research area? ChemistryProf (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chem. I think you've done an excellent job. I would suggest that the words I've bolded be removed since they tend to give a POV slant to the paragraphs. Also you use the word "significantly/significant" several times. I would think that unless the researchers use this term themselves, our use of it would be a POV, and since we are drawing conclusions based on the studies, possibly WP:OR. I think for Wikipedia we would have to source the word significant. I could be off on this.  Perhaps other editors could comment on that.(olive (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the points olive. I am used to scientific writing in which "significantly" refers to "statistical significance" with regard to the measure in question. Statistical significance is a universally understood expression and is exactly what the referenced papers said. I have now corrected the paragraphs to make this explicit, for the sake of any whose understanding might not be clear on this point. As for the connecting words "however" and "yet," these were added to make the paragraphs more readable. If other editors agree with you that they give an undue slant to the material, then obviously they should be removed. The result would not read as smoothly, but if removing them is necessary to avoid creating any impression of bias, then we will do it. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought you were probably referring to statistical difference, but wasn't sure. As for "yet" and "however" I do think they generally slant slightly, but I may be too picky on this point so other editors can go with what they think is best, and I'll go along with that. Thanks Chem.(olive (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC))


 * In answer to ChemistryProf, I don't have time to study the section and your proposed change. If your proposed change better reflects the research, then I would support it. I respect Olive's opinion, so you should probably make the change.


 * I do think that the almost 400 research studies (perhaps 150 of which are reliable) is large and important enough that there should be a separate article that delves more deeply into the scientific research on TM, with only a brief overview (emphasizing the most reliable of its conclusions) in this article.


 * (I like the way progress, although still somewhat slow, is steadily being made in improving this article. This is in big contrast to several years ago and I am thankful that all of the current editors are suggesting and discussing changes politely, carefully, and intelligently.) David spector (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, we have two to one here on the "however" and "yet," so I have dropped those from the paragraphs. Editors have previously discussed the possibility of a separate article devoted to the research on the TM technique, and I have generally been open to that. However, it seems a bit odd to have an article devoted just to the research on a topic and one to cover everything but the research. To be fair to the TM technique article, research should be a major part of it. So this provides a bit of a quandry. Currently, I lean toward leaving the research in this article because so much about the technique has been researched and quite a bit of it is as good as it comes, in my opinion. If there were a consensus among editors that we should create a separate research article, then there should be a fairly comprehensive summary of that research in the TM article, with links to the other article. This is likely to give rise to some problems in terms of what research to highlight in the TM article and how to summarize it. Provides many new opportunities for POV debates. And compared to what I have seen in many other articles, even the fairly extensive treatment of research here is not excessive for a WP article. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * David, I believe there are closer to 8OO studies on the TM technique of which over 300 are peer reviewed.


 * Chem there is a separate article on the TM technique research here: Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation . For now until there is some agreement as to how we deal with this article and the research article in terms of duplication, I would add whatever you add here to the research article.(olive (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I didn't know about the article on the research. I will take Olive's suggestion and make these changes in both. Thanks. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * olive, I took a look at the article devoted to research on the applications of the technique and decided not to add this material there. It does not appear to fit. The proposed new paragraphs are focused on key biochemical effects of the technique related to its possible function as a means to reduce or reverse the effects of stress. This is central to understanding how the technique might work to reduce illness, improve cognitive function, and other such applications, but it is not an application in and of itself. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chem, you wrote of the study by Michaels that it found that TM showed "no significant effect on stress-related biochemicals." But didn't the study find just the opposite? I thought that it found there was no significant difference between TM and relaxing controls but that it did show a significant reduction. By the way, I've always hoped we could say in the article (in a way that a general reader could understand) why this reduction is meaningful, what it indicates. Maybe right up front we could say that both TM and relaxation have been found to reduce stress-related biochemicals in the body, indicating such and such. Then follow that by discussing the relative effectiveness. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That seem slike a good suggestion, Timid. --BwB (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Persinger Self Published
Persinger's TM and Cult Mania is considered "self published" as far as I can tell. Since we have a fair amount of reliably sourced material in the Control Issues section, I am considering removing Persinger. Any concerns with that? (olive (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Considered self-published by who? Christopher Publishing was an independent publishing house from 1910-2005. Are you claiming it was a vanity press? Fladrif (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I'm not claiming anything, and had I been sure of this I would have removed it. I, in checking this source yesterday came up with information which seemed to indicate the book was published by Persinger's department at Laurentian, and I didn't look further nor did I book mark the page. In looking further, I do see Christopher Publishing House, a reputable publisher. I'll look further just because this is somewhat strange, but even if I find this other information as long as there is information that indicates there were publications through Christopher Publishing House I would think the source is reliable and the entry should stand as is.(olive (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Good work "Sherlock" Olive. --BwB (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed
In attempting to figure out how to reorder the cult section for better flow, logic, and so on, I realized some of the text doesn't refer to the TM technique at all. I went through ( altered text is here ) the section and bolded text that seemed unrelated to the actual technique itself, leaving in any text in which there was some connection even if slight. Would other editors mind taking a look at this to see what they think? Should we remove the text that I've bolded? Is there any other text that should be removed as not referring to TM or is there text I've bolded that seems OK to include in the article/section? Is this a way to proceed in this section or not? Anyway, input would be appreciated.(olive (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Comments
Please add any opinions/ comments you might have below.(olive (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm fine with deleting the bolded text in your sandbox version. My preference, though, would be to remove the entire section, as my personal experience with TM teachers, students, TMO executives, educators at MUM, and attenders at the two long-term residential programs leads me to the strong belief that no part of the TM-related programs is a cult in the sense of the People's Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Manson Family. Disclaimer: I also don't consider Scientology, ISKCON, or most other religious organizations to be cults, merely belief-based organizations to which their members are devoted. I hope this helps. David spector (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi David. One thing we are dealing with here is delineating the TM technique from the organization. So one can say the organization is a cult whether true or not, but a technique can't be a cult ... so what I am asking input on is whether what I've bolded actually refers more to the organization rather than to the technique. Its just a discussion though at this point to see if i've got things right or at least if others agree. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, if the answer is that it is more connected to the "organization", then where should we put it instead of here?   Will Beback    talk    02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have answers nor do I want to give any. My concern is step one; is there content here in the cult section that shouldn't be here, that is, connected to organization rather than technique. If that is the case then we can decide what to do with the content that we move . I from my side am also looking for a situation where all editors can agree on what to do. This is a highly contentious section and I from my side am not interested in any one sided decisions, and am looking for guidance especially from those who have indicated a nonsupport of TM. This is the beginning of that dialogue. We need your input and we need Fladrif's to make sure we get a section that satisfies all viewpoints; my position in opening this discussion anyway.(olive (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


 * The whole issue of what constitutes a "cult" is a big mess. I agree completely that the Transcendental Meditation technique can in no reasonable way be considered a "cult." Assuming one could come up with a definition of "cult" that everyone would agree on, I do not see how it could be made to apply to a simple technique. We all have ideas about what cult-like characteristics are, even if we cannot define the term adequately. There is no denying that aspects of the organizational structure of the organizations that teach the technique and of some of the purported effects of the technique, especially of its its more elaborate version called the TM-Sidhi program, can appear quite beyond what most of us have come to consider "normal." But these claims and phenomena can be viewed in many ways, depending on ones background, opinions, and view of the world.


 * At least it is true that Maharishi himself and his closest followers have always been eager to support research to objectively test the claims and purported effects. In many cases, a considerable amount of research has been done, and some of the seemingly most preposterous claims have been verified objectively. I feel that what is needed most here, rather than a section referring to the word "cult," is to list the items where the most people have raised doubts and deal with the scientific research investigating those things. If there is no research, then at least we can get descriptions of different points of view from the practitioners and teachers themselves and from those outside the organization. The material that is left after removing the bolded text does that to some degree, but not in a systematic way. What I am saying is maybe instead of this section trying to call the technique a cult, which is inappropriate with any definition that I have run across, we could have a section devoted to controversial claims or controversial reactions to claims of certain effects of practicing the technique. Does this make sense to anyone else? ChemistryProf (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cult refers to a group and group dynamics so I would agree that in no way can a technique be considered or defined as a cult. At the same time there are claims made against the organization that need to be included it would seem. I'd like to have a loit of input on this topic since this has been a very contentious part of the article.


 * What do others think of this suggestion:


 * '''Suggestion Chem prof: ..."than a section referring to the word 'cult,' is to list the items where the most people have raised doubts and deal with the scientific research investigating those things. If there is no research, then at least we can get descriptions of different points of view from the practitioners and teachers themselves and from those outside the organization. "

'''


 * Bolding content that seems to refer to the organization rather than a technique was a first step to at the very least cleaning up the syntax of that section, so yes lots has to be done to make the section more encyclopedic. Thanks Chem. (olive (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I too have felt that some material in this section has been irrelevant and always maintained that this article in on the technique of TM. A technique cannot be a cult, so the whole cult section can go as far as I am concerned.  No doubt there have been concerns raised in the media about the TM organization exhibiting "cultish" behavour, but perhaps the TM article is not the right place for this.  I agree with Olive about cutting out all the bold text and then rewriting the section.  --BwB (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this section on Cult does stick out a bit and could probably use some work. I notice that the first sentence (in bold) in the sandbox refers to the "organization that teaches TM". Maybe this kind of information is better suited for the MVED article. The information is sourced and therefore a valid point of view. We just have to consider where it is most relevant and how it can be presented in a neutral way and without creating undue weight or emphasis. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that I'm asking for input because i'm not sure how to proceed while taking into account the concerns and wishes of everybody ... so I have no opinion at this point. I Just need input so when I do edit the section everybody will feel comfortable with the outcome. It has been a highly contentious section so I have no interest in dealing with this on my own without lots of recommendations from all sides. (olive (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that "Cult Issues" is the proper title for the section--"Controversies" would be more neutral--and there should be more context for the citations referring to the TM organization as a "cult" or "cult-like." A cult is typically understood to be "a social group sometimes accused of mentally, physically, or sexually controlling its members". The paradigm instances of cults, such as the Jim Jones or David Koresh groups, involved extreme, destructive behaviors. By contrast, the TM organization is moderate and mainstream. For example, it is affiliated with an accredited research university that has received recognition and millions of dollars in research grants from the US National Institutes of Health and other establishment agencies. Moreover, as the Wikipedia Cult article documents in extensive detail, characterizing a group as a "cult" is not neutral. It is very often just an expression of fear and hostility based on a lack of understanding. If we change the title and provide more context explaining the ad hominem character of the term "cult", then I think some of this material could be retained. Hickorybark (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hickorybark you make some good points. It would be great to have context for cult but unfortunately we can't do that on Wikipedia. That would be considered WP:OR. All we can do is lay out information that has already been published in reliable secondary sources. All the information we are posting here is helpful in deciding what we want to do next.(olive (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


 * In the Wiki guide on Words To Avoid WP:WTA is says to avoid words that are derogatory and words that label and uses cult as an example of a word to avoid even in the text. So the suggestion to take the word "cult" out of the section title is probably a good idea. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the WP guidelines and the comments here, it is clear that we do not use the word cult in this (or any other) article. However, it may be appropriate to deal with the following definition that was brought up. The WP definition cited above, namely, "a social group sometimes accused of mentally, physically, or sexually controlling its members", is something the organizations teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique have been accused of, either by someone who has learned the technique but subsequently had a "falling out" with one or more of the organizations, or someone who has no direct experience with the technique or organizations that teach it, but who tends to believe every negative word they read about what goes on. A decision seems needed concerning whether it is appropriate to discuss this claim in this article or in another article. I think it could fit in this one, as long as the connection to the technique is made clear and the discussion is balanced. In my experience, the number of practitioners who share this negative point of view is vanishingly small. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When WP:WTA says we should avoid calling a group "terrorists", for example, it doesn't mean that we cannot use the word in the article on Al Qaeda. What it means is we shouldn't call the group that using the editorial voice. It is fine to say that Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist group by experts and officials. Likewise it's fine to say that TM has been called a cult. In fact, NPOV requires we do so if that's a significant point of view.   Will Beback    talk    03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying here Chem. We can't really create a context for this section. Its either in a reliable source that makes a direct reference to the TM technique or its not. If its not we can't use it even to give context otherwise we are creating OR. We can attempt to determine the weight of the section per the article and per the sources. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying or suggesting.(olive (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC))


 * If I understand this correctly, its appropriate to use the word cult within the content of the section and should be done by attributing the word and information to the source. The concern may be in using the word cult in the heading. In doing so we immediately establish  credence and legitimacy for the term. It would seem to be more neutral to call the section something neutral like controversy and then within the section add information about cult. Does anyone else read the guideline WP:WTA  this way.(olive (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC))


 * It does seem from reading the WP:WTA page that it is better to attribute the expression to a reliable source. Also, I think better not to put in the heading of the section.  --BwB (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by indicating that the word cult is not acceptable is based on my interpretation of the following 2.4 section in WP:WTA. "Words that label Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example: It seems clear in this context that using the word cult in the section title is inappropriate, and would probably be inappropriate in any article. If I correctly understand other parts of this guideline, because this is such a derogatory word, it would be inappropriate to use in the text as well. Instead it would be better to detail the substantive claim that a reliable source has stated, such as "the organization has been accused of emotionally controlling its members." Hope this is clearer. It's actually quite similar to the battle that has waged over quoting someone's using the word "crackpot." Anyone can use such a word, but it is such a loaded word that to insert it into the article would in most cases constitute a rhetorical statement by the editor. ChemistryProf (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Peoples Temple is a cult, which...""


 * Interesting to see more material appear in this section just at a time we are trying to clean up the section. While this material is sourced (although page numbers would be appreciated), it seems that the text is more a reflection of the authors appraisal of Maharishi University.  Again, my point is that TM is a technique and therefore cannot be a cult.  Perhaps this new material would be better suited in a article on MUM (notice it has been added to the MUM article already) or a TM organization.  What do others think?  --BwB (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have had a problem with this section which moving out material that doesn't refer directly to the TM technique might have corrected. The section violates WP: NPOV. Adding more of the same doesn't correct the problem but exacerbates it, and makes the problem even more apparent. I've bolded the text and added it to the sandbox since it refers to the university. (I don't have the book at this point). My hope was that we could come up with a way of dealing with this section as a group with input from everyone that would satisfy everyone, but I can't see that adding even more questionable material in terms of whether this is about the technique or something else helps the situation.(olive (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
 * The material that I added is an appraisal of the way TM is practiced in the town and university at the center of the TM universe in the US. There is considerable and transparent sophistry going on here in trying to divorce TM the technique from the manner in which it is practiced and the organizations or the people teaching it.  Fladrif (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been on going for years on how to keep this article about the technique and not everything else connected to the organization. I'm sorry you see an honest attempt to include all opinions the way you do. The section is heavily NPOV however you cut it, and I am looking for a way to pare it down while retaining the most pertinent content. The best way to do that is to have lots of input and hopefully out of that will come some creative ideas that everyone can feel happy with, and that support creation of a strong article. (olive (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Flad, we are not trying to deceive anyone here. We are simply saying that perhaps the TM article is not the right place to include material that describes an author's view of the culture at MUM where TM is part of the daily routine.  You have added the material to a new section in the MUM article.  This seems a better place to have it.  --BwB (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been able to find a source for the D’Antonio's book online, but a friend tells me that text form D’Antonio's book reads: ""For the first time in my travels through New Age America, I worried that I was observing a cult rather than a culture." He does not write, as the Wiki article now reflects that "Transcendental Meditation is a cult, not a culture."    Perhaps Flad can provide a link to the text of the book from where he got the text?  --BwB (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion needs to become more focused. The first issue is the title. "Cult issues" is a not-so-subtle attempt by some editor to create a negative view and needs to be changed. The choice of title can do a lot to shape what comes under it. Here it has served as a channel for inserting some ridiculous commentary into the article. Speaking from 40 years of experience with the technique and its practitioners and teachers, when I read these opinions relating to cult, they seem to me to be coming from another planet. As I said earlier in this discussion, whoever made these statements (and I would not be surprised if this applies also to those editors who put the comments in the article) either has learned the TM technique and has been dissatisfied to the extreme, or they have gained all their "insights" into the technique and its dissemination by listening only to the negative voices. In 40 years, I have encountered three former practitioners with such negative views, out of a total of an estimated 10,000 I have met at one or another event. To represent the views of these few almost exclusively over the views of the thousands of others who have quite the opposite opinion is not appropriate for this or any other encyclopedia. So let's start by changing the title. Any suggestions? ChemistryProf (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "Criticisms in the press"? --BwB (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is more neutral, but maybe too broad. The topic is closely related to the one just above--namely religion. Perhaps it should be something like "Other issues pertaining to religion" or "Other religion-related claims" or something of that nature. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be "Other religion-related debates" or "Other religion-related discussion." Anybody else have a suggestion? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Trim section
I've been bold and trimmed this section as some editors discussed. Some may find it too little and others suggested moving the whole section, so they may find this not enough. I hope this compromise works for everyone. I believe there were suggestions to move the text removed from the TM techniques article to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. So if the change here is OK, I'll move the remaining content. I'll give this a few days so everyone can have a chance to look at this rewritten section.(olive (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I disagree strongly.Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif. This discussion has been ongoing for quite a while and you did not comment in any substantial way . Now that the changes have been made you simply delete everything with the only comment being, that you disagree. This is a collaborative project and I made a clear plea to all editors to comment so we could arrive at something that all could agree on. And yes compromise is part of this kind of project. Your unilateral action to restore everything rather than to make any efforts to discuss points that we could all agree on is not civil nor appropriate per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm astonished that so much sourced information was deleted. Consensus does not override NPOV. If editors don't want this material in this article then they need to create a more appropriate article for it. Outright deletion of relevant, source, neutral material is not good editing.   Will Beback    talk    18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion on this topic. This subject has been under discussion for quite awhile and you and Fladrif both had numerous opportunities to comment . Note also that you asked me what could be done with the material that was not in the article and I clearly stated that I would in a few days once editors had a chance to look at the changes, move it to MVDEDC. This was not a deletion, it was a rewite after discussion and included a sandbox. If editors do  not want to comment that's fine, but do  it come here and accuse me of bad editing. And please read the discussion.(olive (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC))


 * NPOV? The section is so heavily weighted to the negative, what are you talking about. If there's a non neutral POV it is slanted towards slamming TM. There is one more or less positive comment and the rest slams TM. NPOV? Right! (olive (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
 * The discussion above? It provided no clue whatsoever that you were about to summarily delete this material. Even you characterized your deletions as "BOLD" indicating to me at least that you recognized that it had never been even proposed, let along agreed upon.  Will is absolutely right about this, and your argument that your edits are justified because this section is negative toward TM are utterly without merit. Fladrif (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not mischaracterize what I said and read the discussion. The material was not deleted . The material was replaced, reorderd and parts were rewritten to accurately reflect the sources. You did not deem to comment. My action was based on the comment of those editors who did take the time and trouble to do so and was the compromised version since some felt the whole section could be moved.(olive (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Neither Flad nor Will have contributed text for the rework of the "Cult" section that has been under discussion since Oct. 10, or so. As Olive says, the text was moved to other article and the section rewritten. It was not an outright deletion. Everyone has had an opportunity to work together towards an agreed version.  Perhaps we can now all take the time to do this? --BwB (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not attempt to mischaracterize what you wrote or what you did. You summarily deleted material, eliminating references and text. You rewrote sections not to accuarately reflect the sources, but to mischaracterize them and misrepresent both the sources and the statements therein. I utterly reject these self-serving self-justifications and the ridiculous assertion that a bunch of editors gathered around their computers at MUM in between Yogic Flying sessions can create a consensus that overrides the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.Fladrif (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrfi look at the sandbox...and tell me what is going on there, and what was discussed here. Your accusations make no sense. Material is not deleted, it is in the sandbox, and as every editor knew who followed this discussion it would either be moved back into the article or would be moved to another article   pending time for editors to look at the first change that was made. What sections do  not reflect the sources. If anything was not clear in terms of my rewrite as it wasn't for some editors they corrected it.
 * Anything could have been added or removed from that rewrite at any time. You are an editor then edit if you don't like something, but false accusations do neither you nor I any good.(olive (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
 * To which article aas the material sourced to Marc Galanter (psychiatrist) moved?   Will Beback    talk    19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing got moved, as Olive well knows.Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are beyond my comprehension. Read the discussion and the following comment:

''I believe there were suggestions to move the text removed from the TM techniques article to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. So if the change here is OK, I'll move the remaining content. I'll give this a few days so everyone can have a chance to look at this rewritten section''.(olive (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Let me translate: General agreement was to move some or all of the section. Content was moved from the sandbox where it had been sitting for several weeks into mainspace following the apparent end of discussion. Neither of you commented about moving the reworked content into mainspace during those discussions. I moved the reworked content. I said I would move the content into MVEDC article in a few days to give editors a chance to react.

Neither of you took an active part in this discussion even though you knew it was going on. Then rather than admit that something had occurred which you had neglected to take part in and which you didn't like, a perfectly legitimate situation, you both turn around and attack me with innuendos, suggesting I am acting without honesty. and am editing poorly. Had I wanted to make this change more permanent and more difficult to reverse I would have moved the remaining content immediately to the MVEDC article. Out of a sense of fairness so that if even at the last minute and after all of this time someone disagreed, a revert and further discussion would be fairly simple. Fladrif's response is to ask Will how he can "catch" editors here.. How disturbing is that kind of statement in light of Wikipedia's behavioural policies? (olive (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't understand the plan here. If you are going to move material from one article to another, then do so. Deleting it with the plan to add it to another article sometime in the future is not a good process. Further, the Galanter does not appear to concern the MVEDC, so I don't understand the logic of moving it there. That article should have sources that talk about MVEDC, and this article should have sources that talk about TM.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * TM is a technique. A technique cannot be a cult . A cult is a sociological group "activity" . The original discussion centered around this point. The mother organization or the "TM organization" is MVEDC. Therefore content that did not reference the technique ,but instead referenced the organization was going to be moved to the mother article with in days of the first move.... Why not immediately? Because every editor who had indicated they cared about this discussion knew the material was there and would be moved within days. An immediate move of the MVEDC content would have made it difficult for the editors who had not been involved and didn't seem to care,  to make changes or to revert. This as you know is not any Wikipedia article. The plans that work somewhere else do not work here. With the best intentions to include every editor and to  create something every editor would feel comfortable with, was and is once again been met with personal attacks and derision.  With respect, no sense now in telling you don't like the plan. There is no content to move now, and I will reopen the discussion to accommodate the obvious objections of some editors . Hopefully those editors will comment this time. (olive (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
 * All Wikipedia articles follow the same rules. It's not for us to say that expert sources have it wrong, that when they refer to "TM" they really mean "MVEDC". It's not our job to say that TM cannot be a cult just because we define things this way and that. It would be acceptable to plit the article into two sets of content: one about the TM technique and one about the TM organization. But whatever material is moved to MVEDC should refer to MVEDC. I suggest you add it there first before deleting here. The temporary duplication won't cause any harm and it'll be easier to see what is going to go where.    Will Beback    talk    23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All Wikipedia articles follow the same policies and guidelines. The processes of collaboration,however, are different depending on who is editing and how that group functions.Those processes here are very different here than in a less contentious article
 * If the source is talking about an organization or a group, its not talking about a technique. And the official name of this organization is MVEDC.  As far as something referring to the TM ORG (MVEDC), that’s no reason it shouldn’t be moved to MVEDC…”we don’t second guess sources” is right, which means if the Source says TM and refers to a group in the source, then it doesn’t got into the TM (technique) article. It goes where the source intends it to be categorized…MVEDC.  We go by the subject of an article and put the source’s content into the appropriate article…not second guess the source because it refers to the org or group as just TM ….it’s obviously content about the ORG…or MVEDC. (olive (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC))
 * 1) I don't think that concept is clearly spelled out in the text. 2) We should create a dismabiguaiton page so that readers won't get confused between TM(technique) and TM(group). 3) If the bulk of the material on the cult issue is going to another page then the section here should have a {main} link to make it clear that this is just a summary. Also, we need a source that says TM is a technique and so can't be a cult, and that people referring to TM(group) really mean MVEDC.   Will Beback    talk    00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I utterly reject the proposition that independent editors are bound by the TM-Org's PR campaign and business plan that one must differentiate between TM the technique and the organization and people who peddle it. The claim that this article is about the techique is utterly bogus. The article says practically nothing about the tecnique, and any time anyone tries to add anyting about the technique itself, the TM-Org affiliated editors have a fit of apoplexy. Anything that the TM Org considers the least bit controversial or uncomfortable gets deleted from this article, shuffled off to some other article, and ultimately attacked there on bogus claims of weight and neutrality.  This has to come to a stop.  It has gone on too long without someone stepping in and actually enforcing Wikipedia policies including in particular the conflict of interest policies that this group of editors, all with direct finiancial ties to the TM org, are convinced just don't apply to them.  The pattern of edits, acting in concert, are disruptive, and have made these articles horrible mish-mashes of self-serving self-promotions.  I am not the least bit embarassed to say that the process needs to be commenced to ban TM Org employees from editing these articles.Fladrif (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

These are good comments, we should put the TM(group) related text in MVEDC and then note in the TM(technique) article in an appropriate way that the article is just about the technique and have links to these other related articles.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask again - do we have any sources that say MVEDC is the TM(group)? I checked that article and there's hardly a single source which even mentions MVEDC. Maybe the better solution would be to rename that article something like "TM(group)", acknowledging it as an umbrella topic, and rename this one to "TM(technique)". That would improve the focus of this article significantly and deal with this issue in a straightforward manner.   Will Beback    talk    19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term TM(group) seems like OR to me. MVEDC on the other hand is a real entity, a notable topic, and has reliable sources. For more details on this point please see my comment on the MVEDC talk page.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If OR is the problem then please provide sources that say when scholars refer to TM they really mean MVEDC, which is being asserted here. I'd argue that "TM" is widely considered an organization, not just a technique.   Will Beback    talk    20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MVEDC would according to the TM.org website seem to be the official name for the mother organization under which all of the other programs and services are listed including the TM technique.
 * The TM technique could exist without the mother organization. They are not necessarily interdependent and are not the same thing, since one  is a sub set of the other. In the sources they have often been used interchangeably. TM is a technique... and... TM is an organization, kind of like this: . What we have to decide, and I think this depends  on editorial judgment is how we are going to name the mother article, and I don't think there is a definitive answer to that. (olive (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Sources?   Will Beback    talk    02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what the sources I see say - the name for the "organiztion" in common use is "Transcendental Meditation movement". Some sources even abbreviate it "TMM". In a newspaper archive there are about 130 substantive mentions ot the TMM, and about 3 of the MVEDC. In a search of Google books, it reports over 600 hits for TMM and only 18 or fewer for MVEDC. So by those objective measures, "Transcendental Meditation movement" is the appropriate name for the organization article.   Will Beback    talk    02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Additions to "Principle of technique
The recent text, while informative and well referenced, does not belong in the "Principles" section. Perhaps we can add a section about development of higher consciousness and place this text there?
 * The Maharishi taught that there were seven levels of consciousness: (i) waking; (ii) dreaming; (iii) deep sleep; (iv) transcendental or pure consciousness; (v) cosmic consciousness; (vi) God consciousness; and (vii) Supreme knowledge, or unified consciousness. He taught that the fourth level of consciousness could be achieved through Transcendental Meditation, and that the fifth state could be achieved by persons who meditated diligently. Higher levels were attainable depending on one's committment to meditation and purification. He said that Guru Dev had achieved the seventh level of consciousness. [27] [28] These states of consciousness are re-expressions of the catuspad which emerged out of the Upanishads and are prominent in Vedantic teachings.[29]

What do other think? --BwB (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the sources? All I see are numbers.   Will Beback    talk    01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. --BwB (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're too busy to make a proper proposal then I'll do it.
 * The Maharishi taught that there were seven levels of consciousness: (i) waking; (ii) dreaming; (iii) deep sleep; (iv) transcendental or pure consciousness; (v) cosmic consciousness; (vi) God consciousness; and (vii) Supreme knowledge, or unified consciousness. He taught that the fourth level of consciousness could be achieved through Transcendental Meditation, and that the fifth state could be achieved by persons who meditated diligently. Higher levels were attainable depending on one's committment to meditation and purification. He said that Guru Dev had achieved the seventh level of consciousness. These states of consciousness are re-expressions of the catuspad which emerged out of the Upanishads and are prominent in  Vedantic teachings.
 * Do the sources discuss this material in the context of "development of higher consciousness"? We should be following the sources.   Will Beback    talk    02:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources describe these as levels of consciousness, so a section named "States" or "Levels" of consciousness would be possible and appropriate.(olive (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry for the confusion. I am simply suggesting that the addition of this text does not fit in the "Principle" section and should be put in a different section. Olives ideas seem good. --BwB (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sources are discussing "levels of consciousness" then that would be a good section heading.   Will Beback    talk    03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with a subheading "Levels of Consciousness", but what is the basis for claiming that this is not a part of the principles of TM? Is it not the case that the theory that there are different levels of consciousness, and that TM is the means by which a person achieves them the most fundamental principle of the entire enterprise?  I am unwilling to accept, without reliable references, the mere assertion that "this isn't part of the principles of TM." Similar material to this used to be in this article, but got deleted without any apparent valid justification, and so I'm bemused by this claim.  It looks suspiciously like the first step in yet another round of the repeated WP:Gaming the system by TM Org affiliated editors that has plagued these articles for years.Fladrif (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with a subheading on Levels of consciousness. Whether this content belongs in the Principles section or in another section for example on theory  is a matter of semantics and of how Principles is understood.
 * If I remember the content on Levels of consciousness was removed in response to concerns from Naturzak... I don't have time to check the archives...At that time there were concerns that this kind of content was hard to understand and too promotional... there were also efforts at different times to remove language that was too esoteric for the lay reader, based on comments from those who did not support TM. (olive (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


 * In a quick look at the archives I don't see the point where seven states was removed, but I'm fine either way, having it in our out, and as a section as Will says or subheading as Fladrif suggests.(olive (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


 * The text seems OK. I do think though that the last two sentences about Guru Dev and the Upanishad sound more like Maharishi's philosophy rather info about TM the technique and might be out of context for this article. The other sentences seem to be levels that are said to be developed through TM and are appropriate content. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Level of consciousness are not part of the principles of the technique, which, in my opinion, has to do with how the mechanics of the technique works. Yes, TM may develop higher states of consciousness, but they are not part of the principals of the technique.  I think states of consciousness is a much broader issue and could be given its own section.  With respect to "gaming the system", this is a complete misrepresentation of my comments here.  I want to article to correctly reflect the technique, and states of consciousness do not belong in the "Principle" section. --BwB (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue revolves around semantics and how the word Principal is understood. BigWeeBoy's comments make sense in terms of a reference to a mediation technique and I think are worth considering. One of the problems may be that the principal's section is already moving more towards content that is really not about principle, but perhaps more about the theory of how the technique works. The section probably needs to be looked as a whole before we decide what to do with the seven states material.(olive (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Olive. Yes there may be semantics at play here, but the principles of the technique, i.e. how the technique works and is practiced is a different topic than states of consciousness.  TM provides a way to experience transcendental conscious (TC), but TC is not a principle of the technique.  --BwB (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good clarification BWB. Maybe we should look at the section to see if it can be rearranged so that it more logically  represents this reasoning. Given this understanding "states or levels of consciousness" would be fine in a section by itself in my opinion. (olive (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Removal and revert of talk page content
Hi BigWeeBoy. I assume you didn't realize you'd deleted a substantial amount of the talk page. I've reverted it and readded you post. Please check to make sure everything you wanted is back in place.(olive (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
 * It happens accidentally when editors edit the entire page, instead of just a section.   Will Beback    talk    01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was petty sure BWB hadn't suddenly run amok and started deleting the talk page.(:o) (olive (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Sorry, not even sure what I did. Complete accident.  --BwB (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. (olive (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Article reorg
I reorganized the Principles section. Thanks Olive for further reorg. I think the flow of logic is better now. --BwB (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have three suggestions after seeing this reorg:
 * I continue to believe that this whole business of levels of consciousness really is part of the principles of the technique, so, I think it should be a subheading of Principles, 3.2 rather than its own section.
 * The material now in "Characterizations" seems to be the identical subject matter to what is in the main heading of the Principles of the Technique section. I would eliminate the "Characterizations" section and move that material to that spot.
 * Shouldn't "Principles of the Technique" precede "Teaching Procedure"?Fladrif (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely happy with the terminology consciousness /awareness in the heading since I'm not sure its reader friendly. It is used in the sources, however. There may be a better way to word the heading.(olive (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

"*I continue to believe that this whole business of levels of consciousness really is part of the principles of the technique, so, I think it should be a subheading of Principles, 3.2 rather than its own section."


 * I see your point above, but I feel that BWB delineated those two rather clearly so my preference is to leave it as it is..


 * I deleted the redundant content in the shorter section and left the Characterizations in place...I'll take a look again and see what else would be good there based on your comment...I was reluctant to remove so much content so went for the shorter text....


 * Rearranged as suggested. (olive (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Remove Tags
I am planning to remove the tags at the top of the article. If you object please state why and what you think needs to be done to satisfy the tag. Then we can amend the article and get rid of the tags which have become a fixture on the article for many months. Thanks.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article covers all significant points of view if it omits the controversy over the cost of the training.   Will Beback    talk    21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thats a good comment. Any points from others?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the need to discuss the high course fee. In addition, I think the article has insufficient coverage of the mystical and/or esoteric programs offered to TM students as part of the extensive followup program. I'm referring to Maharishi's programs for rebuilding houses and offices such that their entrances face directly east, several programs that promise to cure many diseases through unproven, unresearched, and unlikely means (feeling the pulse, dripping warm oil on the forehead, making dietary changes, and adding tea and other foods or supplements sold by the TM organization), courses in Astrology and other such pseudoscience, etc. It's easy to find details and references to specific websites for these various follow-on programs through Web searches. David spector (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is specifically abut the technique itself. Many of these programs you mention have their own articles, so any reliably sourced information could go there.(olive (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC))


 * David if you go to the navigation bar at the bottom of the TM article you will find links to articles that cover the topics you have mentioned. At the same time I also note that you feel the TM article needs some discussion of course fees. Let's see what other editors add to this discussion and then I'll create a new thread for the topic of Course Fees so we can outline exactly what we think needs to be in the article, available sources etc. Thanks for your input.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "David, if you go to the navigation bar at the bottom of the TM article you will find links to articles that cover the topics you have mentioned." Not so. Several of the programs I find most objectionable are not listed there, such as the programs that offer "quack" (pseudoscientific and unresearched) diagnoses and cures for diseases (Maharishi Pulse DiagnosisSM, part of Maharishi Aryurveda, and Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology). If people knew that the TM organization has apparently offered and continues to offer "amazing" and "instant relief" from serious diseases for $900 by whispering a "Vedic word of wisdom" (Vedic Vibration Technology), they might have concerns about the TM organization, if not the technique of TM. Already, many people reject TM as "religious" (it actually is not at all religious) only because the puja performed as part of initiation looks exactly like the standard Hindu religious ritual of offerings, also called "puja". These are some of my motivations for asserting that the mysticism and pseudoscience of several of the advanced TM programs is very relevant to this article on the basic TM technique. TM is offered as a practical course of study for the general public; this is the basic reason that anything that might alienate people from TM is relevant. TM offers the world a great promise but also carries a great burden as the legacy of MMY's unrestrained enthusiasm and questionable policies. WP can do a great service by covering everything relevant to TM in such a way that it emphasizes that the basic TM technique is a scientifically-researched means of reducing stress and improving the functioning of mind and body. This not only avoids "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", but implements WP:NPOV. David spector (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * David, you might want to check Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health for content on pulse diagnosis, and Vedic Vibration Technology. This article is more specifically about the TM technique itself. (olive (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * The article has improved a lot on the neutrality issue, but is still a problem when it comes to the "cult issues" section. As mentioned above, the editorial choice to use the term as part of a section heading is a strong statement of editorial bias. If we fix that, I am willing to see the tag on lack of neutrality removed. I am not sure about the issue of reliable sources. I haven't looked at all of the sources. I have noted some problems in the research section and will be making suggestions for that area soon. I do not expect them to be particularly controversial. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Control issues" is a short title for this section that is much less of an expression of opinion than "Cult issues" without losing the general meaning of the discussion. I would like to use this title to reduce the controversy over this section. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This material has been copied to Transcendental Meditation movement. I started a thread about it at talk:Transcendental Meditation movement. Also, now that it;'s copied there it should be deleted from here.   Will Beback    talk    06:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK it seems to be the consensus that if we can 1)Include appropriate text about the course fees and make some adjustments to the Cult/Control Issues section. Then the neutrality tag can be removed. Thanks for the discussion.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern History
Don't like this title. TM is the technique introduced to the world by MMY in the late 1950s. While it may have roots in the ancient Vedic tradition of India, this is an article about the TM technique. Am reverting the title to simply, "History". --BwB (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of this material has been copied to Transcendental Meditation movement. The material left should be focused on the history of the technique, which I imagine would be fairly limited unless the technique has undergone changes.   Will Beback    talk    22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

lawsuit
Seems like this could be removed now that it's in the TM movement article, especially since the only two remaining claims weren't specifically related to TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal above that all of the text copied to the TMM article be deleted from this article. There are a few details of the history that should be retained.    Will Beback    talk    18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Questioning title: Control issues
I don't think we have the right title for the so called cult section yet, and should go back to the proverbial drawing board. I'm including some comments by a couple of scholars on the usage and idea of the word cult.

Chryssides:

"The use of the word 'cult' which is characteristically employed by anti-cultists carries pejorative connotations, as is evidenced by the consistency with which the NRMs themselves take exception to the term. New religious movements are dubbed by their opponents as 'cultic', or, more specifically, as 'destructive cults'."

"The fact that they are 'free standing' and hence lack a specific religious identity helps the anti-cult movement claim that because their goals are unclear they are possibly sinister"

"As things stand, academics and anti-cultists alike are inclined to bend or ignore their professed definitions almost at will to suit their own purposes"

Timothy Miller : Introduction pg.1-2

"They [sect and cult] are largely avoided in this book as they generally have been by scholars for several years because in popular use they have become largely pejorative. 'Cult' today typically means a group that the speaker does not like, considers potentially harmful and wants to deprecate."

My point in posting these quotes is that the word "cult" is heavily non neutral and leans to the pejorative. We need another word for the heading. Possibly the bigger problem is that the section on cults is a highly  biased slice of  the much larger and increasingly well studied area called among other things alternative movements, or New Religious movements. (olive (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC))


 * This section has been moved to the TMM article. Perhaps the discussion should be held in that article's talk page.   Will Beback    talk    23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup ...I've moved it. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Discussion: Naming the article on the TM organization
New section to make following this discussion easier for everyone with discussion "Transcendental Meditation movement" moved from above.(olive (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Discussion
In news reports across at least four countries, the organization that Maharishi founded is called the "Transcendental Meditation movement". We should have an article by that name that includes an overview of the various elements of the movement and other issues that concern the organization in general rather than the technique. The current MVEDC article comes close to that, but the MVEDC is not notable enough on its own to merit an article. "Transcendental Meditation movement" is the most common usage.  Will Beback   talk    10:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Maharishi founded many organizations. They have no clear relationship to one another. "Transcendental Meditation movement" is an arbitrary designation, sort of a convenient shorthand used by the media in these instances, and sort of a bogeyman. Do you have a source that defines "Transcendental Meditation movement"? Certainly it's not a corporate entity. If we invent our own definition, then that's original research. If we do invent a definition, then it would likely be any activity related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his teaching. This would be very broad. It would include all the organizations in all the countries in the world. It would be a long article. But that's fine, I guess. Another possibility for an article would be "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." That could be more precise, properly naming the many corporate entities. Unless, of course, you have a good source that lists the corporate entities that constitute the so-called Transcendental Meditation movement. That would be very helpful. TimidGuy (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting this together, Will. I don't think there has ever been any doubt that many sources call the organization TM Movement, and we probably can find as many sources that use the term TM Organization. I would agree that there don't seem to be enough reliable sources for the MVEDC article, and the sources used  aren't strong enough to support using it as the name for this overarching article.  Whether it should be deleted or absorbed into another article  is another issue. I guess my point is not whether sources exist that use "TM Movement"  but for accuracies sake, how to reconcile the popular version used in the press and literature with the official term used by the organization itself.


 * In terms of how we deal with the many organizations the TM organization includes, we might look at the Catholic Church article as an example. There is an overarching article, but as well, there are complete and extensive articles that are linked to that article. The TM org is not as big as the Catholic Church, of course, but it does set a good example. Since TM Technique and the larger TM organization article can be confused, dab links should be added to both articles.


 * Something like name the TG suggests for such an article is an excellent idea, since it can be inclusive of all  entities and does not include violations of WP:OR. (olive (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
 * No, something like the name TG suggests is utterly without merit. The term "TM Movement" is widely used not only in the press and publications, it is far more widely used than "TM Technique" or "TM Organization" combined. We went through this exercise this summer, when this same absurd claim was made, and I pointed out that official publications and websites of the various TM entities also use the term "TM Movement".  We are to report what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. To do so in this case is not original research, and claims to the contrary are irrational It is also our job to give thought to how we can be most helpful to users hoping to get information about a subject.  It is not helpful to users to bury information under topics that they are not likely to be looking for, just so we can conform to whatever the whims of the MUM manual of style dictates. I have no idea what taboo is being broken in Fairfield by using the term "TM Movement", and I don't care. If a user is interested in information about the term that is going to come up most commonly in a Google search, "TM Movement" burying it under some absurdly long title or the ever-changing corporate names that appear to be spun off daily and rarely if ever reflected in the press is doing them a serious disservice.Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're already using an arbitrary and original-research definition for MVEDC, according to that article which talks about many entities without ever explaining the connections. If the choice is "TMM" versus "MVEDC", then the choice for the better article title should be obvious.   Will Beback    talk    18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we've determined that the MVEDC article is lacking in sources, and that there is agreement to move out sources that do not support the topic and subject matter of the article. Seems the discussion here is about another article called TM movement, TM Organization, or a name that brings all aspects under the name of the founder.
 * Summarizing so far:
 * Movement seems to have more sources than org., but they also have different meanings. An org generally references a business or company, movement is generally more of a sociological description. Neither may be inclusive enough. Perhaps two articles are needed or perhaps Org could be merged under Movement.
 * Programs of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is descriptive like Greek Islands or Eastern Catholic Churches rather than a naming of something like MVEDC, and as such adding programs and their descriptions is not OR while adding anything to TM movement that does not say TM Movement requires research... OR. I'm not supporting anything at the moment just attempting to get a sense of the discussion points.(olive (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Summary of what? What exactly is supposed to be the point of this "summary"? This discussion is hardly so complex that even the most casual of reader could not follow it. It is not a full, fair or accurate summary of the discussion.  Is it intended to be a summary of your and TimidGuy's talkings points?  I do not accept this as a summary of my comments on the subject, and it certainly does not reflect my understanding of Will's comments either.   Fladrif (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a discussion Fladrif. You get say something, then I get to say something. I don't attack you for your posts, and you don't attack me for mine. I was summarizing not the discussion, but the different possibilities in the discussion  so far on how  to name the article. I added some things that occurred to me as well. That's what I get to do when Its my turn to comment. I think Will wants to call it TM Movement. It was not a summary for my and TG's talking points, just a collecting point in the discussion, especially since Will's comment below was not clear. If you don't like it you could push on and make your own points or add something to the points I made  clarifying whatever you want. Quite simple really. If I can see the possibilities laid out then perhaps it will be easier to make an informed, neutral decision.  (olive (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Our service is accuracy. I agree that "TM movement" is commonly used. I've never seen a comparison between that term and TM organization so I can't comment on the popularity of the term TM org. If we use TM Movement than use of sources that say TM organization becomes a jump, and is OR. A. I can't see how this will create an article that acurately reflects the entire organization. Using a title that attributes the individual and often unrelated and non interdependent aspects of the org to the founder would be more accurate. Adding WP:Hatnotes to each article ensures that the reader will be easily aware of both the technique article and the organization article. Nothing would be hidden as you suggest.(olive (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If we do that then accuracy will follow. I can assure you that more sources refer to the "TM movement" than to the "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", a phrase I've never seen before.   Will Beback    talk    18:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will is absolutely correct here. Putting TM-related organizations under a "TM Movement" article is not original research; it would accurately reflect the secondary sources.  Repeating the same baseless arguments over and over doesn't make them any more valid or persuasive. This incessant Wikilawyering is tiresome, obstructionist, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time and energy. Fladrif (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, where discussions are supposed to take place, implying that there is no one right opinion, view, or answer. The notion that there is only one correct opinion, and that any other opinion given can be described in derisive language is a mistake.

I'm confused by Will's edit summary...What article already exists? (olive (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Let me clarify my question. We are discussing another article that has yet to be named which will reference TM organization, or TM movement, or some other agreed upon name or maybe several articles. We are not discussing changing the name of this article. (olive (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
 * The existing article titled "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation" is a coatrack for the whole TM movement/organization. It is not an article about the MVEDC alone. That's what I was referring to. We can eithet cut that article down to a stub, which is all that is supportable by sources, and start a fresh article or we can simply rename that article.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand, does anyone have sources that indicate there is another term for the overall TM movement that is used more frequently that "TM movement"?  Will Beback   talk    00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem calling the article "TM Movement". My broader concern is the boundaries of the article.  Maharishi was working for over 50 years all around the world.  Many organizations, corporations, foundations, etc. got created in different countries.  There are many different techniques and programs that were introduced by Maharishi that are taught and managed by different entities.  Each program may have thousands of news articles written about them.  How do people suggest how to structure and manage all this information?  --BwB (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest the logical thing to do would be to material related to the TM movement. If individual programs are notable enough for articles of their own, then split those out and leave summaries.   Will Beback    talk    03:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Post on Naming Conventions talk page I've posted here to get wider sense of what is appropriate.


 * I'm probably fine with TM Movement but frankly think the name will cause big problems, and would prefer a name that references Maharshi since such a name is probably the most inclusive. Wider input may shed some further  light on the situation.(olive (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
 * If more sources refer to it as the "Maharishi movement" than the "TM movement" then we can use that instead.   Will Beback    talk    05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked Google News Archives. The official names of the organizations are used quite often. It's true that "Transcendental Meditation movement" comes up 418 times. But "international Meditation Society" comes up 206 times, "World Plan Executive Council" comes up 159, "Global country of World Peace" comes up 146, and "Maharishi Vedic Education Development" comes up 22 times. If you total up the references to four official organizations, the figure is 533 sources. Plus, let's pick another organization as an example. "Maharishi University of Management" comes up 693 times, and "Maharishi International University" comes up 552 times, totaling 1,245. "Maharishi School" coms up 315. These are all organizations related to Maharishi. Why shoehorn them into an arbitrary shorthand term that's used relatively rarely? Just 418 times in 40 years of articles in Google News Archives. Wouldn't it be better just to name the article something like I mentioned: "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi"? There are scores of organizations that could be sourced. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would concur that there seems to be a wide variety of terms used to describe this collection of organizations and activities that originate from Maharishi. For example, in this NY Times article the newspaper uses the terms "TM movement", "Global Country of World Peace", "TM organization", "the movement", "the organization", "Global Country" or just plain TM as in the phrase "sell TM's health products". Since all of these programs and organizations originate and radiate from the person and name of Maharishi, why not as Timid Guy says use that as the title instead of arbitrarily picking one of many terms used by the press in a seemingly random way.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand TimidGuy's point. We have individual articles on some of those notable entities, such as Maharishi University of Management. The "TM movement" as a whole is as notable as any of them, and more notable than most. It is certainly much more notable than MVEDC, and is the main term used to refer to the overall organization. Again, if there's a better term then let's use that, but it seems to be the common name. As for Keithbob's point, we need an article that captures the many, many comments made about the TM organization as a whole. For example, the cult allegations. No one says that the Global Country is a cult, or that MVEDC is a cult, they say TM is a cult. So either that information goes into an article which talks about TM as both a technique and an umbrella organization, or we create an article about the organization of that and other overview-type issues. I think the MVEDC article was originally created to be an umbrella article, but it's now being edited to cover just the narrow topic of the MVEDC.    Will Beback    talk    17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Yes sources say that TM is a cult, the also say the TM Movement is a cult, they also say the TM organization is a cult and they also say TM is not a cult. There is no consistency on the terminology in the media. Furthermore, if you are looking for a place to put text on cult issues than create an article with that name. We don't want to create and article with a generic name and than fill it with cult allegations. That would be a WP:Coatrack article.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors here said that the cult allegations don't belong in this article because this article is just about the technique. So when people say that "TM is a cult", or "Maharishi founded the TM movement" we cna't include those here and we need an article to hold those views. Yes, the media use various terms for the overall movement. I've proposed that we use the most commonly repeated phrase, "Transcendental Meditation movement". We can add the similar phrases, like "Transcendental Meditation organization" as redirects. Again, I don't see anyone suggesting a more frequently used term so I suggest we go with that, and move most of the information now in MVEDC to that article.   Will Beback    talk    21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, I don't see that you've addressed a point that I've made a couple times. I've suggested we could consider a more descriptive title such as "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." And I don't see that you've addressed a question that I asked: Do you have a source that defines the Transcendental Meditation movement? Or will we ourselves be defining it by inference? If the term Transcendent Meditation movement were consistently used everywhere by convention as an umbrella term to refer to all the various organizations, then fine. But the sources don't really suggest this, which I was trying to show. The more specific names are more frequently used. So I don't know if it makes sense to subsume all of the organizations under this term, especially since it's not at all descriptive, and that a more descriptive term could be better. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I partially addresed your point, replying that I'm, not aware of any source using the phrase "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." Operationally, I'd assume that's a good functional definition of "TM movement", though. I haven't looked yet for a definition, and don't have time to do so at the moment. But we do have sources that say things like it was founded by Maharishi in India fifty years ago. I think the term "TM movement" is sufficiently descriptive such that anyone familiar with the field would know what it means.   Will Beback    talk    17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to take comments like TG'ss seriously, because it is utterly unsupported and directly contradicted by the sources. He asserts, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that there is an inconsistency in how people use the term "TM Movement". It is incumbent on his to prove it, with citations. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in the the sources that Will has cited or that I have looked at.  Even official TM documents and websites use the term "TM Movement", and describe the organizations as the entities through which it operates. See eg:  This is consistent with the usage in independent articles, books and publications which identify the TM Movement as encompassing its practioners, beliefs, theories, research and organizational structure.  The various corporate entities are identified as the organizations through which the TM Movement sells its services and products. See e.g.  or as an "arm" of the TM Movement.  See eg  Fladrif (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, most certainly TM Movement is used and has been used in multiple ways and to mean many different things (Google brings up 249,000 hits on TM Movement and a quick look clearly indicates diverse uses.) The real issue is whether it can be defined and if you have sources that do define it than the concerns I personally had with OR are lessened. Thanks for finding those. If this is the title we use, it will be easier to write with those sources.(olive (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Discussion continued: Arbitrary page break

 * One other point I think we need to consider when discussing the boundaries and what the new article (if we create one) is to be "about" is the fact that TM is taught and practiced all over the world and not to get too US centric in the topic or content. For example, we have the Maharishi Invincibility School of Management in Johannesburg, South Africa. And the Maharishi Research Institute in Japan.  --BwB (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point to remember, and this supports Timid's idea to use a name like "Organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" is that Maharishi's name appeared in the title of his programs, entities, and organizations all over the world - Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Ayurved, Maharishi School, etc. --BwB (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that if we are set on dealing with all the organizations and actions related to the Transcendental Meditation technique and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi under one title, then the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" is likely the best. I also agree that this title will mean different things to different people, especially if we do not put a great deal of effort into defining it and into making the lede both comprehensive in its scope and completely neutral in its tone. Movements of many types exist and originate in different ways. Rarely is one person truly responsible for a movement, whether it be a social, a religious, a political, on any number of other types of movements. I have heard the story of how the TM movement started. While Maharishi was an integral part of it, he did not take responsibility for it. He was visiting Southern India on a personal pilgrimage when he was unexpectedly called upon by the local people to speak on knowledge from the Himalayas. He reluctantly spoke seven nights, and at each talk the crowd grew larger than before. People from surrounding towns then begged him to come to their towns. From this simple, innocent beginning, the "movement" arose. It was then and appears to be today a natural, self-organizing phenomenon. That is probably why we cannot find a single organization that is the overriding entity. It's because the overriding entity is nature itself, the nature of humanity searching for more meaning in life and for happier, more successful lives. Many feel the simple technique Maharishi began to teach has been the primary factor in elevating their lives to be just that, more meaningful, happier, and more successful. But if this is the true story of this movement, is it likely to be told here in a WP article? I am dubious, for several reasons, not the least of which is that the simple stories like this are often not found newsworthy and thus may not find their way into print. Without available sources, the story is not told on WP. Instead, the negative, often hateful, views and attitudes of a few individuals with "axes to grind" come together to make the article. If the proposed article unfolds in this manner, would the result be of lasting benefit to society, or would we all be wasting more of our precious lives? ChemistryProf (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some good source material right in "Beacon Light" on this, more or less consistent with your understanding, at least for a couple of months in 1955. Followers wanted him to endorse the organizations that they proposed to set up in each city and town. He initially declined, but by October 1955, was actively involved in the organization of the "movement". The balance of your post requires no response. Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, I hate to get off topic, but please could you show me where I asserted that there's an inconsistency in how people use the term TM movement? TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting your post of 11:30, 4 November 2009
 * If the term Transcendent Meditation movement were consistently used everywhere by convention as an umbrella term to refer to all the various organizations, then fine. But the sources don't really suggest this, which I was trying to show.Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And to you that means, "He asserts, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that there is an inconsistency in how people use the term "TM Movement". "? I don't think there's inconsistency in how they use it. My point was that the media don't consistently use it as an umbrella term. They frequently, as I showed in a post above, use specific names for umbrella organizations, such as Global Country of World Peace and International Meditation Society. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I have this right. The term isn't used inconsistently, but the use of the term is not consistent. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, I don't understand the sense in which Transcendental Meditation movement is descriptive. Readers may assume, like Blueboar did, that it's just referring to an organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation. And I don't understand why you say that anyone familiar with the field would know what it means. Aren't we writing for a general reader? TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar suggested that we first get consensus on what the article is about. It seems like we have a consensus, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that the consensus is that the article would be about all the organizations and activities related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Is that correct? TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like what we may need to do is develop this theme of 'Organizations and Programs related to Maharishi' as part of the Maharishi article and then if it becomes too unwieldy it could become an article fork. This may be a way to avoid a blatantly OR topic name like some have suggested. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The scope of "TM movement" is pretty obvious. This article is about the TM technique, and that article should be about the movement that supports and teaches that technique.   Will Beback    talk    19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will is absolutely correct. The posturing that is going on here is utterly absurd.  No, you don't get to decide in advance what an article is going to be about. You don't own these articles. Not individually. Not collectively. Fladrif (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The movement that "supports and teaches that technique" is called MVED in the USA. Are we going in circles?  --BwB (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia isn't limited to the U.S., and neither is the TM movement. The MVEDC is one of the entities in the TM movement, but it isn't the only one, nor is it the first.   Will Beback    talk    20:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reposting notification of the discussion at Naming Conventions talk page here  that may have been lost in the discussion especially with the page break, and Blueboar's final comment which will explain why this discussion has shifted in emphasis:
 * "...however, defining the scope does impact what the article should be named, and there does seem to be some confusion as to exactly what the scope of this potential article should be. I suggest that you all go back and discuss this at the main TM talk page (or where ever you can get the opinions of the most number of interested parties) and hammer out exactly what you want this article to be about. You may find that it names itself in the process. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)"


 * With appreciation for Blueboar's input, I don't see any significant confusion. The scope of the article is the TM movement, as opposed to the TM technique which is covered in this article.   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some editors appear to not have been aware of the parallel discussion going on. Since my original post was hard to see i wanted to remedy that. Is there consensus/agreement for the term "TM Movement" or do some editors have more to say.

... these terms like "TM Movement" are indeed umbrella terms hugely general in scope. I don't see a concern with attempting to define what is under those umbrellas, or perhaps that can be decided as we go along.(olive (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
 * It appears to me that there is a consensus that "TM Movement" is that appropriate title. I base that conclusion on statements above by olive, BWB, CP, Will, Blueboar and myself acknowledging that it is an appropriate title.  TG has his own proposed title.  I don't have a sense either way on KBob. I think that this ship has sailed. As for consensus on content, that is something that develops as part of the editing process; it is not something that you can decide in advance with the intent of limiting the scope of future editors adding content. Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the "TM Movement" title. I want to be on Flad's ship.  Hopefully I can get a return ticket?  All aboard!! --BwB (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "TM Movement" it is.(olive (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

It seems the majority rules. Apparently by having named the proposed article, we have also agreed there should be such an article? As I said above, I am dubious about the worth of the proposed article. I do not share Fladrif's confidence that, once we have a name and start putting in stuff, everything will be worthwhile. I guess maybe we have different ideas about what "worthwhile" means. I do not see a problem with making some plans for headings and topics before we start. Throwing things piecemeal into a new article does not make a good WP entry. Most importantly, there should be a clear, in depth definition of what is meant by "TM Movement." If this is defined too narrowly, then the article may be not just worthless but an abomination. Couldn't we start with some broad discussion of what constitutes a "movement" of any sort and how this movement is similar to other movements, or to what extent it might be unique. If the breadth of definition is great enough, and the attempts to be neutral are sincere, then maybe something good can come out. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No one needs permission to create a Wikipedia article. I don't understand the opposition to this. Does anyone deny that there is a TM movement?   Will Beback    talk    05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't denied that term is used. I proposed, based on the guideline on article naming, that we use a descriptive title. So let's assume we won't use a descriptive title (and no one really explained why) and will use TM movement, at least for now. It seems like we have consensus regarding scope. Will, above you said that "organizations related to the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" would be a good functional definition of TM movement. And the examples of usage you gave above were broad in scope. This scope is supported in the only definition found so far, on the MUM website. We could use this as a source for a definition. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what Will said, and it is not what the MUM website says. These sources say that the various corporate entities are the organizations through which the TMM operates and conducts its various activities. This incessant posturing on whether an article is needed, and what it has to  contain, or what it may not contain, before a single word has been committed to paper...or whatever it is words get committed to on the interwebs...is  completely inconsistent with the underlying policies and purpose of Wikipedia.  If you don't want other people editing and adding or deleting content to articles about subjects near and dear to your heart, you're in the wrong place.  It is very clear from comments like CP's above, and his overwrought emotional outbursts over the Hagelin article, that he is incapable of coping with how this encyclopedia operates when it collides with his Weltanschauung.  Go start you own encyclopedia with whatever rules suit you. But here, you don't own the articles.Fladrif (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what Will said? I quote him: " Operationally, I'd assume that's a good functional definition of TM movement, though." TimidGuy (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this dispute is about, but let's not argue over who said what. WP:NC calls on us to use the most common term for a topic.   Will Beback    talk    18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There lots of ways to write an article and in situations where contention exists it seems perfectly acceptable to move cautiously and to attempt to clarify. As I have mentioned many times in the past, I have serious concerns with this article title because it opens the door for a serious dumping of content. However, we are charging ahead. Although my inclination as an editor is to jump in and see what happens, others are more cautious and that's fine. It takes all kinds to put such an encyclopedia together, and to be blunt there seem to be concerns with trust on all sides of the fence. All approaches can be accommodated, I'm certain, if we assume good faith of each other. (olive (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Fladrif, you have mischaracterized my position. It's not that I am "incapable of coping with how this encyclopedia operates." Rather, I am simply asking the question "Why bother to create an encyclopedia whose entries bear little resemblance to truth or even to the sincere effort to be truthful?" After all, there are no WP rules saying we have to create fictional articles. I believe the rules that exist are an attempt to guide articles toward the goal of truth, even if it is easy to abuse them and come out with fiction. What I am pushing for in creating this new article is a little more attention to this goal. A part of that could be to think through what more could be done to achieve that goal before throwing in all sorts of material as Will Beback  has now done. ChemistryProf (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, and every word you write confirms the accuracy of my assessment.Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
The "Modern History" section of this article appears to talk about the organizations more than the technique, so we should move most of it to the "movement" article, leaving whatever deals with the technique alone. Further down, some of the "Reception" section should also be moved, including "school programs" and parts of "control issues", along with the "Lawsuit" section.  Will Beback   talk    16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. I would move parts of control issues  referring more to a movement than a technique. School programs deals exclusively with the technique so although there should be content in the new article on the educational system, this article should have good coverage of that as well. Lawsuits definitely could be moved.(olive (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I had suggested moving the "School programs" because that material seemed to deal more with the organizational and legal aspects than with the actual technique. Perhaps that's another area where some parts would go and some remain.   Will Beback    talk    17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (PS: I'm going to move this down - wrong position in the thread.)   Will Beback    talk    17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll probably have to do that with most content. that is scrutinize it to see which article it fits into. I've put together a lede as a start and quickly written based on the MUM site which seems a pretty good overview so I'll post that here. I won't be able to do much more until later tonight... (olive (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Lede (a start)

"The terms 'Maharishi’s worldwide Transcendental Meditation Movement' (TM Movement) is an umbrella term used to describe programs developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in education, natural medicine, architecture and city planning, and Vedic organic agriculture. The Transcendental Meditation technique is considered the central core of these programs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi is the founder of the TM Movement. Sourced here :"


 * I think it'd be best to rely mostly on secondary sources if we can. I'm working on a draft now and will post it shortly.   Will Beback    talk    17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its also appropriate to have self definition, so I'd like to make sure we have both. (olive (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Also, it's best to avoid circumlocutions like "'X' is a term that refers to..." Instead we should say "X is ..."   Will Beback    talk    18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've prepared a first version: Transcendental Meditation movement. It uses several sections from this article and the MVEDC article, as well as the ledes from other organizational articles. If there's no immediate objection I'll delete from here the material moved there, as discused above. I moved the "school program" section, but I'm happy to modify that.  Will Beback   talk    18:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I'll delete from here the material copied to the "movement" article.   Will Beback    talk    04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with that. I would rather go section by section, with some rationale given for each paragraph or subtopic within each section. My quick overview of the material to be moved indicates that some parts are not as appropriately placed under Movement as others and that more selective attention and discussion are needed. Maybe I'm just behind the other editors in reviewing each part. Do others agree with Will's suggestion? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's start with the history section. Which parts are about the technique?   Will Beback    talk    05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a big one. Let's start with "Control issues". I copied a more complerte version of the material to the TMM article. Any objections to deleting it from here?   Will Beback    talk    17:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chem Prof, I am not comfortable with a mass removal of verything that has been moved to the TMM article. I think the Lawsuit and Cult sections can be moved, if others agree but we need to go item by item.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I'll remove those.   Will Beback    talk    19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving from the bottom up, the next section to discuss is "School programs", renamed to "Transcendental Meditation in public, private and charter schools" in the TMM article. Little Olive oil wanted it kept here. Shall we delte it from the TMM article or from this article?   Will Beback    talk    19:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, can the material be split so that the technique-related material is here and the organizational material is there?   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did? I'm not sure what I said that gave that impression. I don't remember it and that's not how I feel but my position is that content should be looked at carefully and as individual instances before moving. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Also these changes are being made very quickly before all editors can be involved so there may be concerns later with what has been moved. Should we slow down? But thanks Will for taking this on.


 * Most of the information on the schools references TM the technique specifically and should stay here. But it also provides information on the use of the technique within the organization and can be included in that article. Some content could be duplicated if necessary which I think is acceptable by Wikipedia standards.(olive (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Most of the information on the schools references TM the technique specifically and should stay here. Which material? Can you delete the parts that don't concern the technique then we can make the complementaty edit to the TMM article.   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To keep things moving along, I'll delete the "schools" section and then editors can restore any parts that concern the technique.   Will Beback    talk    17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say except for one or two sentences it all references the technique. rather than delete I can just remove those sentences. If others see more to remove they could do that. (olive (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry to be self-contradictory, but on a closer reading I think the whole section really belongs here instead of TMM. It's all about teaching the technique and doesn't really refer to any particular TM-related organizations. Is that acceptable?   Will Beback    talk    17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what others think but I would almost agree. One sentence refers to movement and it can go...I'll take it out and you can see what you think. I won't revert. .Malnak may be worth discussing either to remove parts of it or reword so that it refers more specifically to the technique.(olive (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I've deleted the material from TMM.   Will Beback    talk    22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)