Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 30

Revert
It says see talk but there is nothing here? Anyway I assume it is due to the section on self characterizations. This do not deserve greater weight than third party characterizations. Probably deserve less weight. We must remember that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and often self characterizations are little more than self promotion.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand, although would the article not need some description of the mantra? Perhaps from its founder and then briefly from others offering different perspectives? I think the problem as it stood however, is that the discussion regarding it is broken across 3 or four sections.  Tuckerj1976 talk 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, according to Wiki policy articles should be based "primarily" on secondary sources but primary sources are permitted on Wiki and in the right circumtstances serve a useful function. One permitted usage is for a topic to define itself. See WP:PRIMARY for more details.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is deleted just moved the content to Characterization heading Transcendental_Meditation. This section now lists how different groups view the movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, Sorry Doc I missed that. Not sure about the heading title though. Perhaps something like Self Characterization or similar?  Tuckerj1976 talk 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Tucker and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An approach often taken is to place the self-characterizations first. That is probably most helpful to the reader. Other views should come next according to their prominence, though in this case that's probably a toss-up.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Will and done however I think it should remain with the section on characterizations. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ME draft #1
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the quality of life for an entire population would be affected if one percent of the population practiced Transcendental Meditation. This is known as the "Maharishi Effect" or "super radiance". With the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program including Yogic Flying, the Maharishi proposed that only the square root of 1% of the population practicing those advanced techniques would be required to created an Extended Maharishi Effect. Practice of TM and TM-Sidhi has been credited by the movement with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reduction in global terrorism, a decrease in the rate of inflation in the US, the lowering of crime rates, and other positive effects. The Maharishi Effect has been endorsed by President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies, and described as "pseudoscience" by some scientists.

ME draft #2
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the quality of life for an entire population would be noticeably improved if one percent of the population practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique. This is known as the "Maharishi Effect." With the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program including Yogic Flying, the Maharishi proposed that only the square root of 1% of the population practicing this advanced program would be required to create benefits in society, and this was referred to as the "Extended Maharishi Effect." Reportedly, practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs has been credited by some TM practitioners with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reduction in global terrorism, a decrease in the rate of inflation in the US, the lowering of crime rates, and other positive effects. The Maharishi Effect has been endorsed by President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique who applied this technology in his country, and positive results have been reported in 42 independent scientific studies. Some have described this research as "pseudoscience." James Randi followed up on some of the claims attributed to the ME. He spoke to the Fairfield Chief of Police who had not experienced any drop in crime rate and the regional Agriculture Department whose statistics on yield showed no difference between Jefferson County and the state average.

ME discussion
The article currently contains no mention of the Maharishi Effect. The TM-Sidhi program article has an extensive discussion, mostly concerning what is properly called the "Extended Maharishi Effect", and it's probably best to keep the main discussion of the ME there. But this article should at least have a short section describing it, per WP:SUMMARY. I've posted a draft above, mostly adpated from the text at the TM-Sidhi article, though I can't find the source for the 1976 study. If anyone can think of improvements to the text please edit it directly.  Will Beback   talk    23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We might find objections from some editors of the primary sources used your draft. --BwB (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I've removed the primary-sourced (or unsourced) studies and added some details along with contrasting views.   Will Beback    talk    20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the cart is trying to pull the horse. ;-) The TM-Sidhi is mentioned in the lead (I'm not sure why) and now we want a paragraph on TM-Sidhi. I'm not sure either one is needed as it is just one of several advanced TM courses.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about TM-Sidhi. It's about the Maharishi Effect, which is created by 1% of the population practicing TM. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback    talk    22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An a credited university says the following, In 1960, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that one percent of a population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique would produce measurable improvements in the quality of life for the whole population. This phenomenon was first noticed in 1974 and reported in a paper published in 1976. Here, the finding was that when 1% of a community practiced the Transcendental Meditation® program, then the crime rate was reduced by 16% on average. At this time, the phenomenon was named Maharishi Effect. The meaning of this term was later extended to cover the influence generated by the group practice of the TM-Sidhi® program. Generally, the Maharishi Effect may be defined as the influence of coherence and positivity in the social and natural environment generated by the practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. (http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/)
 * One TM website also states the following, Transcendental Meditation allows the mind to identify itself with the unlimited reservoir of intelligence at the source of thought – the state of Transcendental Consciousness, bringing benefits in all areas of individual life. However, the effects of Transcendental Meditation are yet more far-reaching: the source of human intelligence is also the fountainhead of Nature’s intelligence – the Unified Field described by quantum physics – which underlies and governs everything in the universe. By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends. (http://www.t-m.org.uk/benefits/)
 * I think that as this is the claim of the organization itself this must be included and any other assumptions should not be made. I am happy with the draft produced by Will Beback above. I do not see this as contentious and do not see why it should be seen as such. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the article needs to look at the whole scope of TM not just the most palatable bits. Thanks Will. Well done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

{od}}Yes, I too agree that a mention of both the claims made by Maharishi and the related research on sociological effects of the TM program and of the TM and TM Sidhi program are appropriate for this article. I have been digging into the research papers and will add some discussion here when I have the early research in hand. As for the proposed statement, I will make a few changes that may increase its accuracy after I have read this research. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good to include the ME section in the article. We just need to be a little careful to make sure we do not confuse the ME from 1% TM practice, and the Extended ME for sq. root 1% TM-Sidhi practice. For example, the Berlin wall came down in the late 1980s, more than 10 years after the TM-Sidhi program was introduced. Was this due to ME or Extended ME? --BwB (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was careful to make sure the sources weren't talking about TM-Sidhi, though we can second guess them.
 * [Maharishi] has long claimed that were a sufficient number of people to sit together with their eyes closed and engage in specified forms of his trademark meditation techniques, they would create "vibrations" which have a profoundly positive effect on the wellbeing of society. Proponents of what is dubbed "the Maharishi effect" claim that such interventions have played a pivotal role in reducing global terrorism (1989), decreasing the US inflation rate (1987) and collapsing the Berlin Wall (1989). Every mass meditation is also said to decrease local crime by an average of 16%. "Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills" Liam Fay. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 13, 2004. pg. 32
 * I suppose, on a closer reading, that "specified forms" might be an indirect reference to TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback    talk    10:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This version looks good. --BwB (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally I have obtained the first two published papers on the ME. As soon as I have had a chance to read them, I will update the suggested paragraph with the most direct information. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What are the papers you're referring to? How can other editors obtain copies?   Will Beback    talk    20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies"? The star tribune as a reference? Come on... Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Please cite better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The same claim is made in the Merseyside paper written by Hathard in 1996. I assume that there's no dispute over the quantity of studies, or that they all arrived at the same conclusion. Perhaps we can find a better word than "confirmed". Hatchard writes, "The Maharishi Effect has been extensively tested by over 40 studies." Perhaps "tested" is a better word, but by itself it doesn't indicate that every test has had a positive result, which I think is an important fact. Maybe what's missing for the reader's understanding is an indication of who has gotten these 42 positive results. How about something like "confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies conducted by movement researchers"? Or maybe as a different sentence: Is there a shorter way of saying it?   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is lots of dispute over the outcomes. We are referring to the ME effect decreasing crime? This ref is good It seems these "studies" do not withstand even a small amount of scrutiny.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tests of the ME by movement researchers have confirmed it in 42 consecutive studies, results that are questioned by skeptics"? Also, I found a solid, though brief, source on the ME: On the Nature of Consciousness. Harry T. Hunt. 1995 Yale University Press ISBN 0300062303. (It's a bit over two pages). Briefly, he faults the studies for failing to randomize the timing and says he thinks they do not prove causality, suggesting that they were in sync with societal rhythms instead of causing them. It's a much better source than The Skeptics Dictionary.   Will Beback    talk    08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, is there a copy of the Hunt material online? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.   Will Beback    talk    07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be leery about claiming the ME is "confirmed" when in fact the only people "confirming it" are Primary sources. We should not give authority to highly questionable, biased, first hand sources. It's ludicrous to claim such a pseudoscientific claim is "confirmed" when it is not. For example, there is no accepted mechanism for the neurons of the brain, or consciousness for that matter, creating field effects of any kind, period.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Kala here. One needs independent research to confirm something. As this research was not done by a third party and third parties have been unable to confirm these result we should say "TM researches claim in 42 studies that TM decreases crime, increases agriculture, etc. Independent researches however have not confirmed these claims." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have two or three different issues here. "Independent research" in scientific discourse normally means simply different studies, even if by the same authors. The 42 studies mentioned above are all independent studies. Some of the same authors are involved in several of the studies, but the studies involved different measures, times, places etc. and are therefore "independent," as that term is ordinarily used. It is also true, as far as I know, that while some of these studies do involve researchers who are not connected with TM or the TM movement, they all involve one or more researchers from Maharishi University of Management or who is a practitioner of the TM technique. This in itself does not invalidate the study. The majority of these studies is published in peer reviewed journals like any other scientific research and therefore they have been vetted by experts in the field. The fact that "skeptics" exist does not invalidate this or any other peer reviewed research. The question of whether "third parties" have replicated these studies is relevant only if we can verify that "third parties" (whatever that means in this context) have tried and have failed to replicate the results. As far as I know, that has not happened.
 * Will Beback, the two sources I mentioned above as the first to report ME studies are the following: Borland C, Landrith III G: Improved quality of city life through the Transcendental Meditation program: Decreased crime rate. in Orme-Johnson D, and Farrow JT, Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program, Collected Papers, Volume 1, 1976, pp. 639-647; Dillbeck MC, Landrith III G, Orme-Johnson, D: The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in forty-eight cities. Journal of Crime and Justice, vol 4, 1981, pp. 25-45. The earlier publication (Borland and Landrith) was not peer reviewed, but was the first report of the Maharishi Effect. The results of this study were, however, incorporated in the later, peer reviewed study published in 1981. It took a while to get these papers. I could not find the whole articles reprinted online. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made changes to Draft #1 attempting to make it more accurate. It still needs work. I question the use of so many media reports for main points rather than using peer reviewed scientific sources or the claims found in official TM organizational publications. Reporters often get things mixed up. I have not read all the studies, but I am aware of most of them. I don't believe any scientific study ever claimed effects on the Berlin wall. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved your draft into slot #2. What is the source for the studies being "independent"? Secondary media reports are better than primary studies. See WP:PSTS.   Will Beback    talk    07:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I don't understand the logic behind this phrase: "Reportedly, practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs has been credited by some TM practitioners with ..." Everything in this article is "reported" so what's the point of that? Also, what do we mean by saying that these are only "credited by some TM practitioners"? I'd assume there are few things that TM practitioners agree on unanimously. Unless we're going to go through and add something like that to every sentence I don't see why we'd add it here. Have any TM practitioners given a different view?   Will Beback    talk    07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, the text from the sources says:
 * Proponents of what is dubbed "the Maharishi effect" claim that such interventions have played a pivotal role in reducing global terrorism (1989), decreasing the US inflation rate (1987) and collapsing the Berlin Wall (1989). Every mass meditation is also said to decrease local crime by an average of 16%.
 * Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills; Liam Fay. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 13, 2004. pg. 32
 * That's a well known, mainstream newspaper. So rather than "credited by some TM practitioners", how about we simply say "according to proponents..."?   Will Beback    talk    07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will, moving the revised version makes it easier to follow the history. Responding to your points, first the use of "independent." Please see the first paragraph of my post. It is common knowledge in scientific research that an independent study is one that does not overlap with any other. In common parlance, referring to a study as "independent" is not a statement about the authors of the study, the funding sources, or anything of that sort. In the context of this article, the word has sometimes been used differently from the common usage. In particular, it has been used to signify research done by authors not affiliated with the Transcendental Meditation techniques or programs. This specialized usage should be explained any time it occurs in the article or discussion.

Second, your point about secondary sources is a curious one. I see nothing in the link you give that says using a mainstream news media secondary source should trump a peer reviewed primary source for presenting non-analytical or non-interpretative material. The following is the relevant statement from WP:PSTS: "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." We are not talking about analytic or evaluative claims here, but if we were, there still is the requirement for a "reliable secondary source." If we are talking about analysis or interpretation of scientific results, then to be considered reliable, the secondary source would need to be a peer reviewed published review article or something of that caliber. If we are not making analytic or evaluative claims, WP:PSTS says primary sources are acceptable. In that case too, as with the secondary sources, peer reviewed published accounts are the most reliable and would be far preferable to news media secondary sources.

Third, the use of "reportedly" was an attempt to acknowledge the weak source of this statement. It is awkward and probably not the best solution here, but just because some reporter claims that someone (are we even told who?) in the TM movement said the ME was responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall, is it really fair to include that in a summary list along with claims that have come from peer reviewed published reports of scientific studies. I don't think so, but I left the point about the Berlin wall in so we could have this discussion. If you have the source for the (1989) date and/or a primary source for the statement, then that would help.

As for "credited by some TM practitioners," again I was trying to deal with the problem of attributing this claim of bringing down the Berlin wall to the "TM movement." I am not aware of this claim having been made by any official organization or any scientific publication. I'm not sure what the dates in parentheses mean in the sentence you quote. I have heard individuals speculating that maybe the large groups of practitioners that were involved in special creating coherence courses at about that time might have had something to do with the fall of the Berlin wall, but are idle speculations the right material for an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. I think we should stick with the scientific articles on this one. I am aware of at least one peer reviewed article that reviews and summarizes many of the ME studies. If we want to use a more reliable secondary source here, I can find that reference and see what kinds of summary statements are made. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CP, it sounds like you're saying that "indepedent" is your own assessment of the studies rather than a description found in a source. If so, then than that's original research and shouldn't be included. As for the Berlin Wall matter, do you think the reporter made it up? Sure, if more reliable sources than the Sunday Times can be found then let's use those instead.   Will Beback    talk    19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CP's interpretation of "independence" is a singular interpretation that, far from being "common parlance," I've never seen used before to refer to the independence of studies. I wonder if maybe it's a misapplication of the concept of statistical independence. Yes, when we talk about statistical independence, we mean that elements of the matrix are uncorrelated with each other, but it's an odd leap to go from that to say that the same concept applies to studies: independent studies are studies that don't overlap, in fact independent studies can even be done by the same people, as long as they are different studies. This, as I said, is a singular interpretation. Actually, the word "independent" referring to studies and researchers is widely understood to mean just what we mean by it here; it's a very important distinction. If someone has written a research study, a critique of research, a review of the literature, a analysis, an evaluative comment, it is important for the reader to know whether that critique, comment, review or analysis is done by researchers who are unallied with the movement that the research is about and with the researchers whose work they are commenting on or summarizing, so can be considered dispassionate and objective evaluators of the topic. "Independence" is precisely the word that most accurately describes the non-affiliation that's a prerequisite to detached evaluation; I can't think of a better. Woonpton (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Berlin Wall:
 * ''1988 Maharishi's Year of Achieving World Peace: Maharishi inaugurates his Master Plan to Create Heaven on Earth for the reconstruction of the whole world—inner and outer. • Warring tendencies are transformed into friendliness—the superpowers shake hands. 1989 Maharishi's Year of Heaven on Earth: Maharishi implements his Master Plan. • The unifying quality characterizes world consciousness as evidenced by the fall of the Berlin wall.
 * Maharishi's Global Accomplishments
 * Maharishi brought enlightenment to a quarter of a million Germans, created 2,000 Teachers of Transcendental Meditation and trained 8,000 Sidhas in the Technique of Yogic Flying. National strength grew and soon the Berlin Wall fell overnight under the nourishing influence of growing Sattwa in German National and World Consciousness, the rivaling superpowers became friends and the country was unified. 
 * Tribute. Raja Emanuel Schiffgens, Raja of Invincible Germany, Invincible Ukraine, Invincible Iran, Invincible Saudi Arabia, Invincible Bangladesh, Invincible Monaco, Invincible Nauru and Invincible Central African Republic
 * Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. Raja Emanuel explained how the governments at the time, and even now, had no idea what caused such a momentous change. He showed very clearly how it was the rise of coherence in the collective consciousness created by Sidhas and meditators in 60 centres around Germany, plus 7000 Vedic Pandits performing Yagyas in India, that caused the peaceful fall of the wall. 
 * "How the Berlin Wall was Caused to Fall" Vermont Vedic Health Thomas Hall
 * Raja Emanuel Schiffgens and Lt Col Gunter Chassé continued their recent report* on the fall of the Berlin Wall, recounting developments that led up to the stunning events of November 1989, when the Wall came down. They explained that all of this was a result of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's initiatives to create a powerful influence of coherence in Germany and globally, through groups of Yogic Flyers and a large group of Maharishi Vedic Pandits in India.
 * "Fall of the Berlin Wall 1989: 'The battle was fought on the level of Silence'" 2010/01/19 Deutsche Nachrichten Agentur
 * On the TM website, the movement claims that a mass meditation session of 7,000 followers coincided with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War.
 * Beatles guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi dies (AFP) – Feb 6, 2008
 * Few believed his more extravagant claims – for example, that it was the collective TM that brought the down Berlin Wall by radiating bliss to the world. 
 * Leading article: Across the universe... Thursday, 7 February 2008, The Independent
 * So multiple sources describe this as an official claim, made by the Maharishi himself or a senior official. I suppose that Maharishi and Raja Emmanuel could be described as "some TM practitioners", but it's not the best description.   Will Beback    talk    21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, with regard to your first point, no it is not my personal evaluation to say these are independent studies. What Woonpton alluded to in his long explanation is correct if the context makes it clear that we are talking about research being independent of any influence of a monetary nature or other source of bias. What is meant by "independent scientific studies" in the sentence I wrote is the more common meaning. This is used in statistical analyses and in publishing. Journals do not want single studies broken up and published as independent studies when they are actually part of one big study. And for statistical meta-analytic reviews, only those data from independent studies (meaning two separate studies) are used in a single analysis. This is what is meant ordinarily when one sees "independent studies" without further modifiers in a sentence. If a person wants to indicate independence from some group or ideology, they would specify that usage using some modifier or it would be made clear in the context.
 * As for the Berlin wall matter, thanks for pulling up all these references to it. Each of them does indeed mention the possible association of meditation groups and the fall of the wall, with some of the statements at least implying a causal relationship. However, it was not claimed to have been demonstrated in any scientific study. A scientific demonstration of a causal relationship would be difficult or impossible for a single event such as this. So what we have in the summary sentence you wrote for the ME statement is mixing apples and oranges, so to speak. Listing the speculative associations made by several leading figures along with the results of peer reviewed scientific studies is misleading. My suggestion is to separate the associations published in peer reviewed scientific studies such as the reductions in terrorism and other crimes from the speculations about the Berlin wall. If the Berlin wall claims are included, then let's name the person(s) making these claims. And where the results of scientific studies are mentioned, let's reference the scientific studies. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can say that there have been 42 separate studies, then there wont be any confusion about the meaning of "independent".
 * The fall of the Berlin Wall doesn't need to have been part of a study to occur. We list things that are attributed to the Maharishi Effect. If someone feels it necessary to distinguish those wich occured during studies from those that occurred outside of studies then we could add some text to cover it, but I don't think we're implying it so I dn't see how readers would get the wrong impression. We certainly should not say that these effects are only "reportedly" asserted by "some TM practitioners", as that incorrectly minimizes the assertion. These effects have been asserted by the highest officials in the movement.   Will Beback    talk    08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using the word "separate" will solve the problem of how to describe the studies. Concerning the Berlin wall and other associations, if we rewrite the sentence more accurately so we can reference claims of specific individuals separately from the findings of scientific studies, then I feel that would solve any problems there. I'll spend a little more time on that as soon as I can. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can attribute the Berlin Wall claim to the Maharishi, to Raja Emmanuel, and to movement websites. The sentence is accurate as written, but if you want to devote more space it then we can say more. Otherwise I've combine the versions based on our discussion here and post it.   Will Beback    talk    06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree that ME Draft #2, after the discussed changes in the wording and sources for the second to last sentence, is nearly ready for posting. I can help with some of the references, but don't have time at this moment. ChemistryProf (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What work is needed for the references?   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pending any other input it looks like there's a consensus so I'll go ahead and add material based on our discussion here.   Will Beback    talk    12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One question though regarding ref 10 "positive results have been reported in 42 independent scientific studies". Is there a copy online? James Randi discusses a great deal of fraud in the TM research literature pertaining to the ME effect so a newspaper report might not be a sufficient source to verify positive claims of ME. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Soma and the Gods
As you maybe aware I mostly interested in the manner in which the science of TM and the state of the research is presented in this article. However, while reviewing this, these pages and comments and links from it I came across the concept above. This can be found referenced in two places: the trial notes of the so called Kropinski trial [] [] and a recent book from a reliable publisher NYU Press (ISBN-10: 0814794505) already cited entitled Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion. On pages 99 and 100 []

To put this briefly, during the trial a video was shown which is shown only to TM teachers (Ordinary TMers would not understand this secret it is claimed). This consists of the TM movements founder revealing the "truth" of the manner in which TM is supposed to bring it's health, wealth and paranormal benefits to those that practice TM meditation. To summerise: 1 While practicing TM the mediator "frees-up channels" which then produces a magical (and one assumes invisible) substance called Soma. 2 This Soma then "collects" in the gut of the meditater. 3 This then produces the feelings of "bliss" so often expressed by the TM movement 4 By producing this soma and repeating their personal mantra the TMer is then asking a particular god to "come down" and drink this soma from the TMers "gut". In this metaphysical parasitic relationship the god then grants the TMer "favors" (better health, longer life, paranormal powers etc. Indeed, all of the things the TM org claims to support with "scientific research"). I do not want to mock by mentioning any of this but surely this should be included in this article in someway, as it would be central to the supposed mechanisms by which TM is supposed to "work" according to its founder? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Academic publishers like NYU Press are the best available sources. This book apparently has considerable information on various aspects of TM and TM-Sidhi. Something on the soma issue might fit in the "principles" section, or perhaps the "Teaching procedure" section, which could use a paragraph on how the teachers are taught (apparently there was an issue about recertification which might go there as well).   Will Beback    talk    09:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would probably go best in the TM-Sidhi article, since production of soma, and reading the Soma mandala of the Rig Veda, was once an key part of the TM-Sidhi prgramme, post yogic flying. I feel it would be OK to include it as long as it wasn't done in a way that made it look silly or disparaging. Please keep in mind this is people's religious practice. It is believed by devout Hindus that the descriptions, like those in the 9th mandala of the Rig Veda, are first hand descriptions of humans in higher states of consciousness. One of the most important is that of a rishi called "The Flying One", which describes his experience of not only flying, but of soma.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kala, I would agree that this needs to be handled delicately and would fully support such an edit that was in this light. However, I would have to disagree regarding Soma (a concept of course not unique to Hinduism if with different names) and the Rig Veda. As I am sure you are aware the Rig Veda does not claim that soma is produced in a meditaters gut,where it is then consumed by the gods, a concept unique to TM I believe or am I incorrect?. Or do you mean that this would need to be clarified in the edit? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of cool ambrosia-like substances associated with various brain centers (chakras) and the yogi controlling them from being burnt up by the "fire in the belly" are quite widespread in both Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. While I do know the Maharishi did not teach this level of yogic technique, he did pretend to and his followers believe a certain amount of it. He is part of a large number of Hindu businessmen who imagined a mythical Vedic golden age. This type of real practice in actuality is much more than mentally reciting mantras (TM) and the mentally repeating English translations of the yoga sutras of Patanjali. But it is good to be sensitive to the Maharishi's remaining followers beliefs.
 * An original Harvard TM researcher (who left any involvement in the TM Org decades ago) Herbert Benson has actually studied yogis who practice these yogas. Their physiological ability to control their bodies is incredible by any medical standard. Some were able to drop their metabolic rates almost 70%.
 * They're far beyond anything seen in TMers physiologically. He details his first experiments in his Beyond the Relaxation Response.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Kala, although I feel a bit silly now. As you are aware, the TM movement believes you are talking to yourself when discussing things with me and the same in reverse []. I guess they may have made their first clinical diagnosis, However, as with much of their research, it is far from accurate ;-) Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit. Or perhaps the TM movement is making a philosophical point. We are all one? Or something like that? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "What did the Buddha say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything." Fladrif (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really should be doing something else but now that you have started it:
 * How many Zen buddhists does it take to change a light bulb? : None, they are the light bulb. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This line of bantering seems inappropriate and disrespectful. Maybe consider striking or removing it; at any rate please don't continue it further, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it had concluded. It was simply the result of silly accusations. Perhaps to lighten the atmosphere. While no doubt inappropriate (and perhaps childish) I don't see to whom it might be disrespectful however. Nevertheless, your comments are appreciated. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Woonpton (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Soma;As someone who practised Transcendental Meditation for many years, and having done the "advanced" course called "Siddhis", the idea of Soma is reinforced after the practice of the "Siddhis" by the reading of the Rig Veda, that talks about soma at length, and makes all kinds of mystical statements.The Rig Veda makes many sexist pleas to the production of "male children" as a blessing and is ,in my humble opinion, an ancient text from primitive and patriarcal (spelling?)Hindu origins.TM wants to emphasise "scientific" notions, but the basis for the organisation is in Hinduism, and the ultimate aims of TM are religious. This dishonesty is well-meant, but delusion is hardly a foundation for improving the human condition.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision in Hendel cites similar evidence in that case as one of the reasons supporting its ruling that the practice of TM and TM-Sidhi is a religion:


 * "...we produced soma in our bodies for the gods to drink when we were doing the sidhis program" (Hendel, p 45) Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Review of Psychiatry
Regarding this deletion of sourced material by Doc, see p 264: "Meditation practice is a promising new treatment for substance use disorders." See the discussion on p. 263, which outlines some of the physiological effects that suggested to the reviewers that it shows promise. That section is introduced thus: "Despite the paucity of evidence from RCTs, the theoretical basis for meditation’s role in addressing substance use disorders is compelling." TM physiological effects mentioned in this theoretical context include increased cerebral blood flow, hypometabolic state, and specific effects on brain activity. TimidGuy (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the original paper. However in the past, editors on this talk page have discouraged the use of sources that are not specifically referring to Transcendental Meditation. So comments in this source about TM would be on topic, while comments on meditation in general would be better placed in one of the other articles, such as Health applications and clinical studies of meditation.   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In this section the source talks about specific physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. It also mentions specific physiological effects of a couple other meditations. Then it draws the conclusion regarding meditation being promising. Would we not mention the conclusion in this case? If so, then we'd also have to drastically rewrite the AHRQ material. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi TimidGuy. The myth of TM being a hypometabolic state was shown false by independent scientists way back in the 80's. TM is actually not significantly different from napping it turns out. I really be leery about placing false information on TM research in this entry.
 * Wow, you sure are interested in that AHRQ section! I thought we had that settled weeks ago.
 * I'd agree with Will, it's not an appropriate source for TM I'm afraid.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Will says that comments in this source that are about TM are on topic. He didn't say it's not an appropriate source. I do hope to hear from Will regarding how to represent conclusions that are explicitly based in part on specific TM findings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'd love any excuse to modify the sections of research as you've done in the past TimidGuy. My fear is just because some mention of meditation talks about (often) old, obsolete conclusions re: TM doesn't not make it a good source. Because of this, we have sources quoting TM, with out-of-date physiological info on TM (or meditation in general) in our current entry. I would doubt any reasonable person would consider such cites encyclopedic, that just seems like common sense to me. Vying for ways to insert such refs. into an article seems not only counterproductive, but contrary to the spirit of WP I feel --Kala Bethere (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you could not add that to the article on meditation in general. I think it would not make sense if the review found research on TM to be self funded, conducted, poor quality etc and then said there was a role for it. To conclude from this that the summery is then discussing TM (and not meditation as it does) in a possible positive light would be to much like synthesis and and original research, would it not? I shall read the review later when I have time  Tucker  talk 13:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An entry specific to TM, should be specifically about TM, no? Some composite reviews, papers or studies including multiple meditation methods often contain obsolete, outdated information on TM. We owe it to readers to provide the most up to date, independent reviews. Also, such compostite papers often contain primary sources and can be used deliberately to include outdated or pro-TM research by editors who wish to post such old material. Using such composite studies as an excuse to include primary sources is the problem.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree an exhaustive meta analysis of the literature on TM is a far better source than using comments about primary research pulled from a review that mentions TM in passing. We need to use our judgment.  Now I have a feeling some will disagree with these comments.  I will once again mention that they can get another opinion over at WP:MED. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a review from 2009. It is up to date. It is compliant with policies and guidelines. It's a secondary source. We don't second guess what the sources say. This review has information specific to TM. Will agreed that that information could be included. It's a mischaracterization to say that this review mentions TM in passing. TM is one of the focal points of the review. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi TimidGuy. You're confusing the title of the journal with WP:MEDRS's preference for a certain type of review. Just because the name of the journal has the word "review" in it's name does not magically make it the type of review WP:MEDRS is referring to!


 * For example, there are many newspapers called "The Daily Review". Just because the name of the paper was the word "Review" in it, does not make the contents WP:MEDRS compliant or desirable as scientific or medical reviews.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anxiety research
Almost every study ever done on TM and anxiety shows that TM reduces anxiety. The Cochrane review looked a single study from 1980 that found that TM had a highly significant effect on anxiety. The 1989 meta-analysis found that TM not only reduced anxiety but had a greater effect than other relaxation techniques. It has been cited 188 times. A 2009 RCT with over 300 subjects that was deleted from the article found that TM reduces anxiety. Since secondary sources include the 1989 meta-analysis, so can we. And since MEDRS doesn't completely disallow primary sources, we should include the 2009 RCT published in a major medical journal that was earlier deleted from the article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you already gone and inserted a quote? Please give us the quote you're thinking of, so we can examine it and see how relevant it is, and then gain consensus. It makes sense a relaxation method would reduce anxiety, but until we look at what you have specifically in mind, it's hard to determine.


 * I believe we've already had a consensus to NOT use primary sources, when we have such a load of good independent material that is reputable and recent. Who are ALL of the authors and affiliates of this paper? Do they list financial ties or conflicts of interests? Thanks in advance TimidGuy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Kala, I also thought that we were not using primary sources. However, given that meditation "should" make you more relaxed it should not be difficult to find this conclusion in any of the literature reviews, should it not?  Tucker talk 17:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the feedback we got at RSN. MEDRS says that it's okay to use some primary sources. In this case the 2009 randomized controlled trial is by far the strongest anxiety research to date. It was conducted at American University, published in a major medical journal, and coauthored by researchers from MUM and American University. The feedback we got at RSN is that we don't exclude research by MUM affiliated authors. In addition, the 1989 meta-anlaysis continues to be cited in recent research reviews, which indicates that the reviewers feel that it is a legitimate and current data point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TimidGuy, I must have missed this advice you speak of at "RSN". Could you please point me too this advice you refer to with a link? I'd appreciate it, as it seems like odd advice to include biased, primary TM Org research, as it violates key WP policies.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kala. if the research is peer reviewed in a reputable publication then it is compliant per Wikipedia. You can't apply a standard that is personal to the studies. In suggesting this study is biased you call into question all of the researchers, and the boards who look at the research deciding if it meets a peer reviewed standard. No editor has that kind of right or control. You are citing a personal position Kala in how you judge studies as content,  and it doesn't hold water per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC))
 * LittleOliveOil, we've been through this several times before, with others trying to explain to you that per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE primary sources are to be avoided, in this case the egregious component is that the authors are directly connected to the TM Org. It might be a different story if we didn't have excellent independent reviews, but we in fact do have such excellent reviews. The analogy we've shared before is that of cigarette manufacturers who set up research to show that cigarettes are good for you. Just because such biased research with financial conflicts gets published does not mean we should use that in an article and give it undue weight. You might not have heard, but (again) as you've been told before, "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance.". Also understand that "unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality" - a common problem with TM research. Notability requires "evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." Littleoliveoil, TM research is used extensively and historically for both promotion and publicity and this latest "flash in the pan" may prove to be otherwise, we'll have to wait for a independent, high quality review to assess that.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kala you've been through this before as you define what independent means. You're making up rules to apply to this study. They won't fly.(olive (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Littleoliveoil these guidelines apply to all studies, regardless of the entry. We have discussed this before. You might remember the lists which were made of the primary sources in the TM entries specifically and going to one of the MED source discussion boards for advice? Part of building neutrality in the articles is allowing neutral, independent sources to take the front. Let's look for the positive aspects in already existing independent reviews, as this is an area we could not only all agree on, it would help bring the article back to a more neutral stance and appropriate sourcing at the same time.

As Tucker suggests, there are positive aspects of TM discussed in the reviews we already have I'm sure that could highlight the anxiety reducing aspects of TM. Let's work together to find those references and obtain consensus. I'd hate to see us sink to using primary sources, when the same benefits can already be found in reliable Med. sources. It's been too difficult to achieve the directive away from primary sources to fall backwards on TM Org research. If there's good anti-anxiety benefits, then independent parties will have found these same traits rest assured.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the amount of research on TM, surely it would be easy to find a review which comes to the same conclusion that Timidguy wishes to make?  Tucker talk 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * TG isn't making a point. He's adding content. My concern ins't TG . My concern is the misunderstanding of policy  and the systematic deletion of pertinent sources some of which are secondary sources. Its a concern.(olive (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Sorry, as far as I understand above he is trying to insert a primary source (none nonindependent?). Again, if there are secondary sources to support this point (and given the amount of research on TM over the past 30 years there should be) then I cannot see why they can be used. Of course it is important that the reference is talking about the TM movements form of meditation and not meditation in general. Attempting to otherwise I think would be more worrying, especially given that Timidguy works for the TM movement.   Tucker  talk 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence
This statement added by TimidGuy refers to before and after studies. It is not a controlled study and therefore of little / no significance. "Before-and-after studies on TM for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement is a quite from the review. We generally feel free to include material from reliable secondary sources. Why would we exclude this yet retain the table, which reports results that weren't statistically significant? I'd be open to discussion, but for now our battleground standard is to include anything found in a secondary source that meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is done by consensus lets see if any one else has an opinion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is becoming so littered again with "scientific" evidence I am unsure about what is being discussed (and do not have patience to trawl through the article again). Would someone be kind enough to link to the edit please?  Tucker talk 00:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the line between the quotation marks you see above which is found here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, this quote is related to comparing TM with no controls, it compares to "no treatment". Almost anything compared to "no treatment" can be shown to show some change of some kind! I'd like to know who put this here. This might be helpful on an evidence page. I vote for removal once source is ascertained.


 * It is these types of problems that concern me, when changes using bad science are sneaked into entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like Littleoliveoil is the most recent editor vandalizing by restoring TM poor-quality research material, uncontrolled studies and unreliable sources, but it looks like it was originally added by TimidGuy.


 * Well, as it seems to happen with every "minor: edit it should not come as any surprise. You will note there are normally a number of these "minor" edits that occur at the same time. Sometimes with more than one Fairfield editor. These often alter things as well as those described. I am sure the editors in question are not attempting to "sneak" edits in but this is how it appears.Perhaps it would be better if this sort of editing was to stop?  Tucker talk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn't realize this was occurring. When I see "minor edit" or someone says "corrected commas" or something similar, I assume it was a minor edit! That's disturbing if it's true.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This edited is listed as MINOR by Kbob with no description of what was added []  Tucker talk 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This Minor edited is claimed to have just aded a ref []

You would never guess what had been added here from the comment. Note how it completly xchanges the tone [] (Good luck in finding the refernce source online by the way?)

The edit says that all that happened here was moving some text []

Another edit that just added a ref []

And another: []

Another []

Another small edit []

These are only a small sample of the edits to this section by one user during one day. Each alone is minor however, note how the tone of the section completely changes across all of them (also note the gradual addition of many primary sources,

Ref page []  Tucker talk 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The above accusations by Tuckerj1976 are baseless and I have responded to them in detail on my User Talk Page.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lansky

 * ''An "advanced form" called the TM-Sidhi program is taught that purportedly develops the ability of practitioners to levitate, walk through walls and become invisible at will, among other powers.

An editor removed the Lansky citation, writing "refs TM not TM Sidhi". I don't have a copy of the paper. Does it not include the assertions cited to it? FWIW, it was originally added here:    Will Beback    talk    18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither the abstract nor the article outline refers to TM SIdhi program, but refer to the TM program. If there is mention of the TM Sidhis in the study, I'd be happy to reinsert the source. As well the Scolnick source does not reference TM Sidhis, but says," If the claims of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi prove true, those who follow him soon will be blessed with eternal youth, "perfect health," and the "strength of an elephant." They will be able to "walk through walls," make themselves "invisible," and "fly through the air" without the benefit of machines.  Digging out what is TM Sidhi and what are other  claims and inserting this content into the lead article as it is now is problematic and edges on OR. I'm not sure why the TM Sidhi program is in the lead of an article on TM, but if there's a good reason for inclusion, a  better source is needed, and there are better sources.(olive (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Not this again!?! KBob was pushing this falsehood about Scolnick's JAMA article on the TM-Sidhi page months ago, in spite of the fact that the relevant language was quoted for him. The JAMA article repeately identifies TM Sidhi by name, and with the various listed powers. You took part in that discussion, remember?
 * One extremely profitable example, reported in The Skeptical Inquirer (1980; 4:7-8), involved the rental of a gymnasium at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst during the summer of 1979 for TM's yogic flying courses. Three thousand students enrolled, one third of whom paid $3000 each to learn the Maharishi's TM-Sidhi program. According to promotional materials, the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have "the strength of an elephant." The Skeptical Inquirer article says that the other students learned more down-to-earth TM skills for $800-$1000 tuition and that the TM movement reaped between $ 3 million and $ 5 million, before expenses, from the courses at the University of Massachusetts. 
 * You have to read further than the first paragraph! Fladrif (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't remember the discussion, and I did miss the reference when I skimmed the source, but at this point I wasn't advocating removing the content as you erroneously say on the Arbitration evidence page but was simply suggesting a better source, and we do have many good sources. The point still remains why is there content onTM Sidhi in the lead of the TM article. That is a point for discussion, is it not?(olive (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

(UNDENT) It is there because it fits logically I would suspect and seems important. It is the next part of the TM program and a brief description is important in the lead. Not to sure why this should be an issue or a continued point of discussion to be honest. Indeed, given that TM is supposed to work because of TMs notion of Natural Law and Scientific creationism (or whatever it is called, SCI?), I am surprised these two concepts are not also included. Might I ask why these have not been included also  Tucker talk 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm replying below.   Will Beback    talk    07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I just got hold of the study and there is mention in the body of the study on TM Sidhis, so the source would be good and I'll put it back in, If you have any interest in looking at the study I'm happy to email it to you.(olive (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)).
 * Thanks for double-checking. I'd love to get a copy of the study too.   Will Beback    talk    19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but not sure how to add an attachment to Wikipedia email.(olive (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You can't, but we've corresponded before. I'll send you another note so you can attach it to the reply. Thanks again.   Will Beback    talk    19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Supplemental techniques
 * Skipping over that intermediate material to the end. the material on TM-Sidhi now in the lede is a summary of what's in the Transcendental Meditation section in the body. Two points: 1) there may be a better name for that section and it might be expanded to show how TM fits together with other technologies and concepts, like MVAH, TM-Sidhi, SCI, etc.; 2) I think the material in the lede can be, um, resummarized and moved down a bit. TM's connection to "supplemental techniques" is important, but it's not so important that it needs to be in the third sentence or the first paragraph. I'll move it down a little.   Will Beback    talk    07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've moved the sentence down to the last paragraph of the intro and added an indirect mention of the Maharishi Effect:
 * In the mid-1970s, the Transcendental Meditation program was expanded to include an "advanced form", TM-Sidhi, which has been said to give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and to generate a peace-inducing field.
 * The "invisibility", etc, don't need a mention here since they aren't promoted currently, while the ME is (and it applies directly to TM too). Feel free to improve it.   Will Beback    talk    07:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone still needs a copy of this paper let me know. One must always read the whole paper before removing refst.  I write using more than just the abstract and the summary having access to 23,000 journals through my University. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I think your change is excellent. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I think your change is awful. First, it's terribly weasel-wordy. "Which has been said"? By whom? It is a claim of the Maharishi and the TM Movement. No-one outside the movement says that it does these things. Second, the claims of invisibility, walking through walls, superhuman strength etc were explicitly made by the Maharishi and the movement at the time of the introduction of the program. It is well-documented and 100% accurate. Third, what reliable source supports the notion that TM-Sidhi no longer makes these claims? Sure, we have Hickorybark falsely claiming in Arbcom that the TM Movement never made these claims - how he thought he could sell that nonsense is a mystery to me.  I think I read a messageboard post by somebody once that said that it no longer teaches the "invisibility" and "walking through walls" techniques. But, other than doing what is essentially original research, drawing conclusions that the other powers don't seem to be mentioned on the TM Orgs websites, I have no idea what the TM Movement tells prospective students now. Just because they don't advertise it doesn't mean they don't teach it still. There is no reliable source that says that they don't teach it. Fourth, it belongs where it was. Fladrif (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't put everything into a lead that is in the article, and this is a small section which is not about the technique itself, but is what I would consider transitional material connecting another article and other techniques to this one. However Will's change is a good compromise, and I'm fine with it. (olive (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You probably meant "put" Olive. I think Will's edits are good and think they can be left intact for now. --BwB (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to have agreement for Will's change, but Will's edit has been adjusted. Is that acceptable to everyone?(olive (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC))


 * No,ageement has not been made. I find myself agreeing with Flad regarding this. It is a tad weasly sounding I am afraid. It should certainly not say, it is said that but that TM claims, etc. Also, I have yet to see any reliable source (even from TM) that the advanced techniques no longer allow a person to become invisible, have super strength, become immortal, etc. I do agree, that a brief mention of SCI and Natrual Law is needed however, given how central these are to how it is claimed TM "works"  Tucker  talk 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing removing the other supernormal abilities from the whole article, just from the intro. I have done a considerable amount of research into this topic in the past several months and, while I've seen countless references to Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect, I haven't seen any other claims about supernormal abilities made within the past 30 years. For that reason I don't think those are important enough to include in the intro. As for who's making these assertions, we can keep tinkering with the wording. However we should try to avoid the word "claim", as it's a "word to avoid" since it implies a skeptical view.   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps TM "has said" will give superpowers, etc would be more true, accurate and without skepticism. I understand that you have researched ths well Will and that TM may not have made a public statement about the superpowers in sometime but that does not mean that these are still not part of "inner" claims of the movement for those that have reached this stage. To think otherwise might be a kind of original research. It is certain that the leader of the movements political and scientific front  in the USA (and its chief scientific spokesperson) is still making claims that practicing TM does allow the user to alter the laws of physics and indeed explains to insiders how  to explain this to outsiders (see: "The Physics of Flying"[]  Tucker  talk 07:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit indeed, re-reading the article above it can be seen that TM is still saying that all of the superpowers are obtainable: QUOTE:"For the rest of the TM-Sidhi programme, says Dr Hagelin, "we can consider       each and every sidhi described by Maharishi Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras,        and understand how through some conscious behaviour, some coherent influence        introduced at the microscopic level, we would expect to see the classical        laws of nature overthrown according to the predictions of Patanjali" []


 * That document is significant for this article because he does mention TM, but on the other hand he doesn't mention any other specific abilities (beyond making flipped coins always come up heads) and it appears to have been written some time ago. "...Hagelin, Chairman of the Department of Physics at Maharishi International University..." MIU isn't called that any more and he's no longer the physics chairman. Getting back to "brass tacks" - this article should include all significant points of view with weight according to their prominence, and the lead should summarize the article with appropriate weight for each issue. If we're asking the question of how can we most improve the intro by adding 10 words, I can think of other issues that are more important than invisibility. For example, the fees controversy, or its context of being the center of a movement that includes political parties and Ayurvedic remedies. I just think we need try to summarize the article as best as possible in the intro.   Will Beback    talk    08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I continue to agree with Will's approach here. --BwB (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, if I was considering learning a scientifically validated form of meditation (proven with research in peer reviewed journals) I would want to know if by practicing it I could become invisible or walk-through walls. Seems like a selling point to me. On a side note: in Irish mythology a Sidhi is  a hill or mound under which fairies live. I have an interest in etymology.  Tucker  talk 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. This article isn't meant to educate people who are considering learning TM - it's for the general reader. While "ignore all rules" is a Wikipedia policy, it should only be invoked when necessary. Otherwise we should follow the policies and guidelines, and those would seem to indicate that less important issues should receive less weight. The ability to turn invisible is not among the most important factors in a four-paragraph overview of TM, which is what the intro should be. Can we compromise on this, and keep it in the body of the text instead?   Will Beback    talk    19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But its only 2 words, hardly seems to take a massive amount of space and very briefly defines for the reader what sort of special powers are available to the TM practitioner as they quickly progress their meditation, along with world peace, etc. Also, not to sure what this has to do with ignore all rules to be truthful. But if it must go only in the body then I would expect it to be expanded, along with far more prominence to "natural law" and SCI which are central to how it is claimed TM works  Tucker talk 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're talking about 14 words: "walking through walls, becoming invisible at will, and have superhuman strength, among other powers". As for the content in the body of the article, let's start a fresh thread to discuss that.   Will Beback    talk    20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

14 words hardly seems excessive to explain the central doctrine of TM (including basic introductory TM), that it gives you the ability to perform paranormal abilities including brining world peace and being able to influence things/events at a distance [], [], [], [][], [], [], [],  Tucker talk 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 14 more words than we need. The proposed text would say, TM-Sidhi has been said to give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and to generate a peace-inducing field. So we're not talking about excluding the existence of these powers, and we'd list the two most famous ones. We're just talking about leaving out three obscure ones.   Will Beback    talk    22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Has been said" Has been said by who/what? One would need to be more specific, would one not?  Tucker talk 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's already modified to "...that the movement said could give practitioners supernormal powers..." I get the feeling we're talking in circles here. No one has presented any evidence that invisibility, etc, are significant enough to merit mention in the intro. I'm just going to go ahead and remove them again.   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TM and the TM Sidhi program are distinct programs. One doesn't learn anything but how to do a simple mediation technique when learning TM. There may be a legitimate reason to include information in the body article on techniques which may or may not follow TM, but I would tend to agree the lead should reference the larger issues in the article that refer specifically to the subject /topic of the article, TM. (olive (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
 * That simply isn't true. The advertising materials for and introductory lectures for TM cover much more than that, and quite explicitly introduce the concepts of SCI, Hagelin's ideas about Consciousness and the Unified Field (a video lecture by him is a part of the presentation, is it not?), that TM is just one aspect of MVAH, and the TM Org is creating world peace through TM and TM-Sidhi, which is repeatedly referred to. Not to be flip about it - OK, to be plenty flip about it, while there's no explicit mention of the most Xenuish esoterica of the TM-Movement at the outset, there's plenty of the "humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration" stuff from the very outset of TM instruction.Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even to the extent that is true, the supernormal powers besides Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect do not get much attention from anyone inside or outside the movement. The shorter version mentions the existence of other powers, but why do we need to list them in the intro?   Will Beback    talk    22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment is specific to Tucker's points. TM is a technique that can be taught distinct from any philosophical, theoretical, ideas and premises. The TM Sidhi program is another set of techniques. We can't conflate the two techniques.  Although one has to be a TM practitioner  to learn the TM Sidhis, I do not have to learn anything else to become a TM practitioner.


 * The lead should summarize what is in the article, so although mention of the TM Sidhis may be a point needed in the lead, perhaps details of the techniques is information that is too specific for a lead, and is best left in the article body.


 * Whatever is taught in an introductory lecture is guess work on our parts. I'm not a TM teacher and I'm going to take a wild guess and assume Fladrif isn't either :o).(olive (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I would refer you to your organisations own main website [] Sounds like basic TM to me and sounds like a paranormal power to me also. Might I also point to: ::::[].  Tucker talk 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call, but I'm not guessing. Just reading what is described on TM-Org websites on what is included in the current version of the lectures. So, I'm not even relying on any unauthorized transcripts from any skeptic sites which may or may not be out-of-date. Fladrif (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Teaching procedures, techniques, and lectures are proprietary knowledge so no, that information is not available to the public. through the TM org(olive (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC))


 * But I think you are referring to the overview of the course while I am referring to specifics... Its probably moot anyway.(olive (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes. I am referring to summaries/overviews that are on official TM Movement sites. It is clear from those summaries/overviews that basic instruction in TM is not confined to the technique itself. I am utterly baffled by your contradictory statements. In one post you assert that instruction in TM involves X but not Y, and in the next you disclaim knowing what instruction in TM involves or doesn't involve. Which is it? Fladrif (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The TM technique is a simple, mechanical technique that can be taught without information on any underlying philosophical information or with out information on its benefits and effects.
 * The technique is taught in seven steps - proprietary information
 * The web site gives an overview of the technique and its benefits and effects, not necessary to its teaching but beneficial to its understanding and the continued practice.
 * The TM Sidhi program is another set of techniques whose teaching steps are proprietary
 * Its effects and benefits are also discussed publicly
 * Since I am not a TM teacher I am only familiar with the public information, and with information that is given to the person learning the technique. I am not familiar with the details of the proprietary information.(olive (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The material conveyed during the initiation doesn't really seem relevant to this discussion.   Will Beback    talk    09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Maha Media
I just came across "Maha Media". According to the "Maharishi Institute of Vedic and Management Sciences", Maha Media is the "largest NEWS AGENCY and PORTAL of India, connecting 185 different countries and offering latest News in multilingual options". Its "Editor-in-Chief" is "Brahmachari Dr Girish Verma Ji". It has at least two other editors. It would appear to be a news service run by a nephew of the Maharishi. Despite the claim, I don't see any evidence that it's the largest news agency of India, but it does at least appear to be a something like a self-published secondary source, reliable at least within that limited context. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are: why bring such an irrelevant topic into this already too-large article? Who cares about a news agency anyway? Is your motivation just your delight in discovering it? That wouldn't be much of a rationale. David Spector (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm delighted to find a new source, especially for under-represented views and facts. The source appear relevant to this and other articles because it covers TM and other aspects of the TM movement.   Will Beback    talk   


 * I would wonder if such a source is actually a true case of a non independent source. I can't see how a newspaper, given that newspapers are sometimes given to non accurate journalistic writing, controlled in good part by Maharishi's nephew could be considered in any way a reliable, useable source. What am I missing here?(olive (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I think Will is suggesting this in terms of a source/reference rather than as an inclusion of content in the article, if I understand correctly. (olive (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't understand the "source/reference" versus "inclusion of content" distinction. We (should) derive all of the article's content from sources. Maha Media is probably a reliable source for Verma's views, and possibly also for the views of the TM movement in India. Those views may not always be the same as those of other elements of the movement, and NPOV calls on us to include all significant views. We deem Orme-Johnson's views to be significant. Does anyone argue that the views of Girish Verma are less significant? He is also a Ph.D. and he is the head of a large TM-centered school system.   Will Beback    talk    19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how this became a NPOV issue? The issue is the source and its reliability. We've had numerous conversations about independent sources. If this newspaper is slanted towards Varma's views and opinions its not a neutral source, is it?  He's Maharishi's nephew. I assumed the independent source supporters would see this as a movement based source. Orme Johnson is used once in the TM article and he comments on research that is  not his own. He 's not giving an opinion he's summarizing, and he is highly credentialed on the area of research  is speaking about. I can see us using Varma to comment on the Maharishi schools in India, the area of his expertise presumably,  but aren't we going to get a slanted, non-neutral view since he runs those schools. If he says these are the best schools in the world is that a neutral view.  At any rate this seems somewhat confusing(olive (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Many of the sources we use for this article aren't neutral. TM.org, for example. Mahamedia would certainly be a non-independent source, as is MUM Press, etc. Varma comments on TM and other issues related to TM. As a leader of the movement, those views would seem to have value. Or are only the views of Western members of the movement worth including? NPOV calls on us to include all significant views, and the Indian views seem under-represented.   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Or are only the views of Western members of the movement worth including?" Why would you even make this kind of comment?


 * TM.org is the official site for the TM. org world wide. We have used it to define how that organization defines significant aspects of itself, and we have also used other independent sources to define TM. I am agreeing that Varma may be used with in the limited context you suggest above. We have to be careful how we use it as we would withy any self published source.  I' m not sure why you continue to argue NPOV. (olive (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I am also not sure what point Will is trying to make. --BwB (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not trying to make any point- just asking for input on using MahaMedia as a source.   Will Beback    talk    11:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hendel again
I haven't yet been able to look at the lower court judgment, but the appellate court judgment has nothing to do with Malnak. It never once mentions Malnak. According to the appellate court, the issue was statute of limitations, and the court affirmed the summary judgment of the lower court that the statute disallowed Hendel's claim. Why are we saying the in the article that Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM is a religion? The only ruling the court issued was a summary dismissal due to statute of limitations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Superior Court decision is published and readily available, cite in the article ref. We are saying that the Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM and TM-Sidhi is a religion because that is precisely what the Superior Court ruled. I have already quoted from the decision for you in an earlier thread:

-
 * "[T]he causes of action must be dismissed for the reason that the practice of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhis program is a religion, and the trial of the causes of action herein would involve the court in excessive entanglement into matters of religious belief in contravention of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution". Hendel p 49


 * The discussion of TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion begins on page 30 of the Superior Court opinion, and continues through page 48, with the above-cited passage as part of the overall conclusion on p49, so over 1/3 of the decision was on the TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion issue. The Court of Appeals did not address the issue because it was unnecessary for it to do so, as it affirmed on the SOL issue. It would only have needed to reach the religion issue had it reversed on the SOL issue. Fladrif (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this been discussed again? The history of the talk-pages of this article are littered with this none discussion where it is confirmed the findings were that TM is a religion, and added. Then at some point later (when editors who do not live in fairfield have left) the apparent Fairfield socks remove it again based upon the logic they had previously been forced to coincide was incorrect. And so it goes. It is odd that this never takes place with any references included that argue TM is not a religion.  Tucker talk 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I might appear suspicious, would this re-interest be something to do with this letter here (edited highlights relavant to this new discussion):

William Goldstein’s accusatory email followed: Dear Examiner Editor in Chief I write this letter as General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management and the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace concerning the article in your online publication: examiner Transcendental-Meditation-in-schools-the-David-Lynch-program I will not comment on the inappropriate statements on the scientific research conducted on the TM program contained in Mr. Mesner’s article. Dr. Orme Johnson’s comments you have received reply more expertly than I could on that subject and I incorporate them [Orme Johnson posted his remarks in the public comments field following the article on Examiner.com]. But there are other false, defamatory and/or misleading statements which need to be identified as such and retracted. The failure to do so continues to damage the reputation of my client organizations which teach and promote these programs, and the individuals involved in those activities. One court case, over thirty years ago, found a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence which included the TM program to have religious overtones violative of the First Amendment. That “Malnak” case has been mischaracterized and its scope overstated by Mr. Mesner. No court at any time has ever ruled that teaching the TM program alone is impermissible, nor that the student is “assigned the name of a Hindu God to   chant”. These falsehoods, defamations and omissions compel me to ask you to remove this article from your newspaper to put an end to the continuing damage its publication causes to my client. Thank you very much for your anticipated co-operation. William Goldstein General Counsel, Maharishi University of Management and David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu William Goldstein General Counsel Maharishi University of Management Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu - []  Tucker talk 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hendel v WPEC was added to the article in recent weeks. It seems important to discuss it and make sure it's accurately represented. Don't you agree? TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the first time it has been added if you trawl the talkpages and it is not the first time you have argued unsuccessfully for it to be removed, then removing it later when it seemed no one was looking. At least that is how it seems although I am sure that is not the case. Thanks  Tucker talk 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to trawl: we can search the archives (see the box at the top of the page). This iwas discussed a couple of weeks ago, at Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_29.   Will Beback    talk    20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I had alreadly posted a direct quote from the decision which says precisely what the text says, and even offered to substitute the quote in the article, TG cannot have had any legitimate question that it was accurately represented, and the question "Why are we saying this..." does not appear to have been posed in good faith. I cannot believe for a minute, given his repeated consultation with MUM's general counsel, (MIU was the other defendant in the case) that TG cannot readily put his hands on a copy of this decision, even if he doesn't have ready access to the published version. As to Tucker's question, Hendel v WPEC punches a big hole in Mr. Goldstein's arguments about Malnak (an argument, coincidentally, that HickoryBark repeated practically verbatim at ArbCom), so I completely understand that the TM Org is anxious to delete any reference to this more recent decision.Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, thank you for that. I did not know that was possible. It seems this is it/isn't it argument has been going on longer then I imagined it was []. This edit by Olive is very funny [] And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indictive of a COI I am sure) [], and this is quaint [] And here is a wonderful discussion about reducing the religion section to decrease the article size and confirm that the mention of religion should not be in TM but in another TM movement article. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure) [] And on and on it goes Truly this is appalling. Is not the PR department of The TM organization embarrassed about this? Tucker talk 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you add that evidence to the RfAR case? As for the official view, at least one past editor claimed to participate in an official capacity.   Will Beback    talk    23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to get around to adding it but feel I have spent to much of my time on this already. I really did intend only to add the odd comment on the talk-page here before I was forced into taking a greater part first by being added to RfAR case by Kbob, then his attacks on the other users here (claiming I was him) and then the silliness he and other TM editors started accusing me of. To be honest I am simply not that bothered but anyone else can happy add this if they want.  Tucker talk 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, I just don't see how it's accurate to call it a ruling. A ruling means a judgment, right? The judgment was that the case was summarily dismissed. There were apparently at least two reasons given for this judgment: statute of limitations and citing Malkank that TM is a religion. I apologize that I haven't yet gotten hold of a copy of the lower court judgment. But my feeling is that calling it a ruling and making it sound like religion was at issue in the case is a misrepresentation. And it highlights the need for a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is too frivolous to merit a response.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep in mind, a number of the TM Orgs websites are or were overtly religious, with numerous pictures of Hindoo gods and goddesses-and the TM pooja, required for learning the practice of TM contains common articles of Hindoo worship (the 16-fold offering to the gods). One of the Maharishi's most popular books is his version of part of the Hindu Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita! These are undeniable facts.
 * I believe the magazine from the separation of the church and state folks actually had a recent cover article on the TM religion question. Since that's a recent reference it may be helpful to include.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's from "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State", , , (cover story) , Levitating Over the Church-State Wall? .--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, why is it frivolous? The text is misleading, making it sound like religion was at issue, and also making it sound like this was the only reason for the summary dismissal. Isn't it the case that they were simply citing Malnak? TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * READ THE DECISION. It is not misleading at all; it is practically verbatim from the decision. Religion was an issue because the judge raised it sua sponte. The other rulings in the case are irrelevant here. No, it did not simply cite Malnak, which you would know IF YOU READ THE DECISION!!!!!Your attempt to construct an argument by inventing an uninformed and specious semantic distinction around the word "ruled" is completely frivolous. If, AFTER YOU READ THE DECISION, you have alternative language that you think is better, let's see it, but UNTIL YOU READ THE DECISION there is no point in discussing this with you. Fladrif (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. I should read the decision. And I apologize for not yet having it in hand. Is it available online? I'm not attempting to construct an argument. I just want to understand in what sense this is a ruling. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And my feeling is that it's wrong to represent it as a ruling. I'm giving thought to better wording. It should say something like, "In Hendel v WPEC a judge summarily dismissed a civil suit, arguing in part that it was disallowed because the practice of TM and the TM-Sidhis is a religion." TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Judges don't argue. Judges rule. READ THE DECISION.Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The ruling was a summary dismissal of a civil suit. A judge can only rule on something that was at issue, whereby the plaintiff and defendant have the opportunity to present their case. The judge's examination of religion is likely considered dicta, that is, judicial opinions on facts and issues not brought before it by the parties. The appellate court which affirmed the Hendel decision made no reference to it. Dicta are "Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent." "Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case." It's not accurate to refer to this as a ruling. TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that if the appellate court had deemed that the trial court language on religion was something other than dicta, it would have likely referred to it as a basis for its affirmation or entirely or largely dispensed of its other grounds. TimidGuy (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single thing you have written in the two posts above is utterly and completely wrong. The ruling in Hendel that TM and TM Sidhi is a religion is not dicta. This is not even remotely debatable. Fladrif (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My mind is getting confused with all this legal discussion. Can someone explain in plain English what the court case was about and what was decided by the court?  Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, you need to explain why it's wrong. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and change the wording. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's wrong because the holding of the court was not dicta. You are completely wrong about the power and authority of a trial judge to issue a ruling sua sponte based on principles of law that were not argued by either party. You are wrong that the ruling of the court on TM and TM-Sidhi, which took up fully a third of the opinion, went beyond the facts in the case. It was based entirely on the facts in the case, which you would know if you had bothered to read it. You are wrong that this is not a ruling.  You are wrong about how appellate courts operate and why the Court of Appeals did not reach this issue.  You are utterly and completely mistaken and/or misinformed about this (am I correct that you are being fed these lines to post here?)  These are findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the judge as one of the bases for the order which he entered, which was the dismissal of the case. They are not asides or observations which are not relied upon by the judge for that purpose.  To use a case with which you are familar as an example, in Malnak, the concurring opinion of Judge Adams quotes a footnote in Tarasko v Watkins as an example of what is actually meant by "dicta":


 * "...The Court then added an instructive footnote:


 * "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 Id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.28"
 * This note, although dictum, represents a rejection of the view that religion may, consonant with first amendment values, be defined solely in terms of a Supreme Being. Buddhism and Taoism are, of course, recognized Eastern religions. The other two examples given by the Court refer to explicitly non-Theist organized groups, discussed in cases cited in the footnote, that were found to be religious for tax exemption purposes primarily because of their organizational similarity to traditional American church groups. "Ethical Culture" is a reference to the organization in Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957), which held regular Sunday services and espoused a group of defined moral precepts. Similarly, "Secular Humanism," however broad the term may sound, appears to be no more than a reference to the group seeking an exemption in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394 (1957) which, although non-Theist in belief, also met weekly on Sundays and functioned much like a church. In any event, the Court was willing to concede that these groups, "and others," were religious for constitutional purposes."
 * The Tarasco court listing various religions which do not teach belief in existance of God is dicta. That list is not part of the holding in the case, it is simply an observation. It did not "hold" that those religions do not teach that. It is an aside, in a footnote.
 * Similarly, Judge Adams himself made several statements that are properly regarded as dicta - for example "Although Transcendental Meditation by itself might be defended as appellants sought to do in this appeal as primarily a relaxation or concentration technique with no "ultimate" significance, the New Jersey course at issue here was not a course in TM alone, but a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence." That is not a holding that TM by itself, without the course in SCI, is not a religion - the issue was not before the court, and it did not decide that issue. The court in Hendel, however, spent a third of its opinion making repeated specific findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ultimate conclusion that the practice of TM and TM Sidhi was a religion, and it specifically held that that conclusion was one of the bases for the relief that it ordered. That is not dicta. It is not an argument. It is a holding/ruling/judgment/finding.
 * Do you understand the difference now?
 * Do not change the language based on your own uneducated and misinformed misunderstanding.
 * And, have you, even now, bothered to read the decision? Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there anything more to say about this or is it settled?   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will. No, I don't consider it settled. I still don't have the lower court ruling. And because Fladrif has misrepresented sources in the past, I feel that I can't quite trust what he says. I need to see the document. I still think he's overstating things. "Ruling" implies to the reader that religion was an issue before the court, but it wasn't. If the judge raises it as a basis for dismissal, it's not clear to me that it's a ruling. However, I do really appreciate Fladrif's detailed explanation above, and the time he took to articulate it. By the way, in Levi Butler article you argued at length against using court documents as sources. That's what we're doing here. We probably shouldn't even be having this debate. We should go with what secondary sources say, ideally law review articles. It's interesting that Fladrif highlights this point from Judge Adams. "The New Jersey course at issue here was not a course in TM alone, but a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence." Yet we say in this article that Malnak found TM to be a religion. That's not precisely true, and law review articles are clear on this. The issue was a curriculum in TM/SCI. And the lower court judgment uses "TM/SCI." TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After all this, you STILL haven't bothered to read the decision? You're perfectly content to assume bad faith on my part, and to advance tendatious arguments for the past couple of months as to what you think it held or didn't hold, inventing objections out of whole cloth, notwithstanding you have not bothered to READ THE DECISION? Nice. As I wrote a month and a half ago, until you READ THE DECISION, there is no point in discussing this with you. After you have READ THE DECISION, if you have alternative language that you think better represents the source, I would be glad to discuss it with you, but your objections to date have been utterly frivolous. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was answering Will's question. I don't consider that matter settled. And I'm trying to get the lower court decision. I've learned not to assume that you have represented sources accurately based on past experience, so I want to see for myself what it says. Plus, there's a general issue apart from what it specifically says. And we still have the issue that it's a primary source. If we had a secondary source discussing this decision, then things would be more clear. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to understand if we can use court documents or not as a Wiki source. As Timid mentions above, Will did object to court docs being used as a ref in another article.  Is there a different situation in this article that permits the use of court docs as refs?  Are they not primary sources? --BwB (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all court docs are the same. IIRC, appellate court decisions are considered to be more like secondary sources, for example.   Will Beback    talk    20:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A new level of zen
Why are we quoting The Sun saying that mastery of TM represent a new level of zen? Are we asserting that Zen and TM are related, or that TM is one of the levels of Zen? If we're just trying to say that Russell Brand has learned TM then let's say that without the misleading quote.  Will Beback   talk    06:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you like, Will. Just reflecting the Sun article, but reword it if you please. No biggie. --BwB (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I just went ahead and made the edit myself. Save you the trouble, Will. --BwB (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we going to add a line or two for each entry? Including the people who didn't like it? It seems like we had this discussion before and decided to just list names and leave out the individual testimonials.   Will Beback    talk    08:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What, like this:

Howard Stern Hugh Jackman Russell Brand

Ext., etc? --BwB (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree that we should just use names. And do it in paragraph form, as I've done in a thread above. TimidGuy (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Squire Fridell practices Transcendental Meditation
Actor Squire Fridell (spokesperson for Toyota in the 1970s who has reappeared in current ads):

More than thirty-five years ago (how the time flies!) I did one of the most intelligent things I've ever done that helped my life and my career: I started Transcendental Meditation (TM).

Discussion

 * If there's ever a "notable practitioners" list or article then this can go there.   Will Beback    talk    01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lately it keeps coming up in the media that this or that famous person does TM. In recent months it's been Candy Crowley, Russell Brand, Mehmet Oz, Andrew Sullivan, James Wolcott, and more. Maybe we should have a section in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The list would be so long that I think it would quickly overwhelm the article. However a standalone list would be fine. As we've discussed before, there are similar lists for other spiritual and religious groups. Because many people apparently try TM but don't stick with it we'd need to make clear that these are people who've learned the technique rather than that they're all current practitioners. Of course, if someone is described as being a longtime practitioner, or any other information, we can add that info as well. Since there's no need for a standalone list to be comprehensive, etc, we can start it and just add new entries as the sources permit without drafting it first and waiting for it to be complete, as we might do with a new article.    Will Beback    talk    20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Prominent practitioners are part of the story of TM, and there are many many examples in mainstream media reports. It wouldn't have to be a long list — just the most prominent current practitioners. It would help add balance to the article, which now seems dominated by the POV of people like Randi, whose point of view is mentioned in five different places in the article. If we had a short section in the article, then we could add something in the lead, perhaps juxtaposing Mehmet Oz with Sagan. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are part of the story, but we can only add so much to any one article. It would be hard to determine who is currently practicing the technique, while it's relatively easy to list those who have been mentioned as having learned it. We already have a few names included. Anyway, we keep talking about this about no one has shown an interest in doing the work.   Will Beback    talk    01:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem in my mind is that if we can only add so many things to the article, why is Randi so heavily represented — five different places in the article? Yet time and again there are media reports about this or that famous person doing TM. We would just use current reports. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Different issues. An even the several sentences we have that reference Randi would quickly be swamped by a long list of names. I don't see any objective criteria that would keep the list short, and some might require annotation. But even as a standalone article it would still permit a summary paragraph here, which could include a few names as a sample.   Will Beback    talk    18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about Russell Brand learning TM December 2009. The Sun (British newspaper) on 9 Dec 2009 reports: "RUSSELL BRAND has acquired a whole new level of zen. He has just returned from a four-day retreat to master the art of transcendental meditation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigweeboy (talk • contribs)

Here's a tentative list that I'd like to go with. I feel like there's so much emphasis in the article on cults and pseudoscience and stuff that we need to give the reader a sense for who practices TM: Heart surgeon, TV host, and author Dr. Mehmet Oz; filmmakers David Lynch and Clint Eastwood; actors Hugh Jackman, Penelope Cruz, Naomi Watts, Ben Foster, and Heather Graham; musicians Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, Sheryl Crow, and Moby; comedians Jerry Seinfeld and Russell Brand; CNN anchorwoman Candy Crowley; radio talk show host Howard Stern; writers Andrew Sullivan and James Wolcott; and former president of Mozambique Joaquim Chissano. These are all current, and easily sourced. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Them and 40 other names. There are dozens of notable individuals who have verifiably learned TM. I'm all for it. Every entry should be reliable sourced, of course.   Will Beback    talk    11:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I think we can be selective and just include those who can be reliably sourced to the past couple years. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would we limit it to just sources in the last few years?   Will Beback    talk    10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to put some limits on it, no? What limits do you suggest Will? --BwB (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same limit that applies to everything: reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TG's suggested paragraph seems fine.  I would prefer the Times Online as a reliable source for Brand rather than the Sun, (in place in the article), a tabloid, which is a questionable source.(olive (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, Times better. Did not have it when i suggested the Brand thing. Please edit using Times ref. --BwB (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The listing is quite incomplete, but we can keep filling it in as time goes by. The paragraph looks fine to go into the article. As it grows longer we'll probably want to move it to a standalone list, but that's not necessary today.   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Before it's added to the article the external links need to be converted to references.   Will Beback    talk    21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure TG will take care of that when he adds the paragraph to the article. No worries.(olive (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm sure. Also, it's progably best to keep the list in alphabetical order, and to keep the biographical descriptions short. "Heart surgeon, TV host, and author" might be a bit excessive, for example. OTOH, simply calling Clint Eastwood a filmmaker omits his acting career. The Beatles made several films too, so it gets complicated. Do we need the descriptions at all, since each one has a full article?   Will Beback    talk    21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we started this thread with Squire Fridell, he should be included.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and posted the list. I have some names I wanted to add so I jumped the gun. Credit for assembling these names and sources goes to Timidguy.   Will Beback    talk    09:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we add some verbage to each of the web links used as refs for the list. Also, we need a ref for Cruz and TM, I think. --BwB (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added all of the people who are in the practitioners category, who attended the 1968 teacher training at Rishikesh, or who are described as having learned the technique in their bios (at least those which link to this article). Any names which we really can't find sources for should be removed from this list, and we should also edit their biographies to remove the mentions or categories.   Will Beback    talk    10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for the list, since he is the founder of TM and IMO should not be described as "someone who learned TM". --BwB (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like I must have restored it due to an edit conflict. Didn't MMY learn it from his guru? Or did he create it himself?   Will Beback    talk    12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Still adding more names and sources...   Will Beback    talk    12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's question. I've never seen sources indicating Maharishi practiced this technique. By the time he'd developed the technique (and it was developed for householders, not monks or those on a non householder path) he had already spent years with his teacher. So logically he must have been doing a technique of some kind long before he developed this TM technique. I'll remove the name pending a source that says definitively that he practiced the TM technique.(olive (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I can't find it right now, but I read an old article very recently (I think while looking up something on the move to Switzerland) in which one of the Maharishi's spokesmen said that the Maharishi did not practice TM. Something about him being continually at a transcendent level of consciousness making meditation unnecessary.Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't check the article edit history so didn't see BWB had already removed the name once.... I can't see that the name belongs in this list and is in my mind very inaccurate, but I'm not going to edit war over it.(olive (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I;m not going to fight over it either, but do not think Maharishi's name needs to appear in this list. If others want it, fine, but I am for removing it. --BwB (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited the scope to read: People who practice, or have been taught, the Transcendental Meditation technique include. That should resolve the issue of those who are known to have practiced it. There are many sources for the Maharishi starting lectures with a meditation session, even when he was lecturing to the uninitiated.    Will Beback    talk    19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the twenty names Timidguy found I've added about another eighty. Some are still unsourced. Of those, the Beatles and the TMM folks are trivial and will be easy to reference. There are a few who might be harder, and might even be incorrect. Jane Fonda, for example. I still think the list would be best as a standalone article. Any objections?   Will Beback    talk    23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this could be a stand alone article, and we can leave in place TG's paragraph here as a  summary since it encapsulates the list compiled. (olive (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
 * TG's original list isn't a good summary of the full list. If we feel the need to include some names here then it'd be better to use some of the names that are often linked to TM and MMY, such as those that appeared in MMY's obits.
 * By the mid-1970s, TM had an estimated 600,000 practitioners, including actresses Shirley MacLaine and Mia Farrow; football star Joe Namath and pop singer Donovan. [.]]In 1967, George Harrison took fellow Beatles John Lennon and Paul McCartney to hear the Maharishi lecture in London. Soon the fourth band member, Ringo Starr, joined them in a seminar for British initiates who, for a $35 fee, received their own mantra. [..] There they joined other wisdom-seeking celebrities, including Farrow, Donovan and Mike Love of the Beach Boys. [..] The Maharishi continued to attract followers eager to learn his meditation technique, such as magician Doug Henning, a highly visible TM promoter until his death from liver disease in 2000. Another prominent supporter is filmmaker David Lynch, who has been raising money to help the Maharishi build "peace palaces" around the world. [..] Among those who broke away was Deepak Chopra, who had been one of the Maharishi's top assistants before he launched his own career as a bestselling author and lecturer on natural healing. [..] He will be succeeded by Maharaja Nader Raam, a Lebanese doctor who studied with the Maharishi for 25 years.
 * The interest of the Beatles was a godsend. Their conversion instigated an influx of celebrities, including the Beach Boys and the Rolling Stones, Kurt Vonnegut and even Major-General Franklin Davis, head of the United States Army's War College.
 * After the Beatles' initiation, celebrities rushed to be associated with the Maharishi. Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Kurt Vonnegut and Vidal Sassoon were all involved with the movement. It was at a TM meeting that the Doors first met. [..] Matters came to a head the following year in what was dubbed the “Indian Summer”, when the Maharishi played host to the fab four and other celebrities, including Mia Farrow, Donovan and Jane Asher, at his International Academy of Meditation at Rishikesh in the Himalayan foothills of India.
 * His meditation techniques became famous after the Beatles visited his ashram in 1968. An eclectic mix of celebrity visitors followed, including David Lynch the film director, the actress Mia Farrow and Mike Love of the Beach Boys.
 * In the late 1950s, the Maharishi aspired to take TM to the West and eventually landed in Los Angeles, where a new culture of hippies, students and assorted spiritual seekers was about to blossom. Richard Bock, the head of World Pacific Records, the jazz label that signed Ravi Shankar, became smitten with TM and turned on UCLA student Ray Manzarek by giving him two LPs he had produced of the Maharishi speaking. It was at a TM lecture that Manzarek met guitarist Robby Krieger and drummer John Densmore - the latter had paid thirty-five dollars for a personalized mantra. "There wouldn't be any Doors without Maharishi," says Densmore, who recalls the guru as "this androgynous little weird fairy dude" who emanated "a palpable love vibe." [..] In 2006, Donovan was reintroduced to TM by David Lynch and was made the Maharishi's musical "ambassador."
 * More recent:
 *  Advocates include film directors Clint Eastwood and David Lynch and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.
 * The idea that 20 names compiled by TG are the people best known for practicing TM would appear to be original research. I'd say that a better list might be something like: The Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Doors, Mia Farrow, Donovan, Clint Eastwood, and David Lynch. (And maybe Deepak Chopra).    Will Beback    talk    00:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OR? I don't see that his list or any other is OR. The paragraph we leave here as a summary, must summarize the extensive list compiled and split off, and just as the 100 or so names are a cross section in a society who have learned to do TM, so must the summary per WP: Summary style be a summary of the master list - cross section of the different kinds of people who have learned to meditate. The paragraph TG created does that pretty well. We can always make a few adjustments to make sure the summary matches up with the master list.(olive (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The full list isn't a "cross-section", it's an exhaustive list of every individual who has been described in a reliable as learing or praciticing the technique. Who decided that the people in TG's list are a cross-section of practitioners? TG, apparently. That's what makes it original research. Perhaps it'd be letter to leave a very short summary, something like, "TM has been practiced by a number of notable people." That'd avoid having to decide which people to include in a short list.   Will Beback    talk    01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a fair sample could be gained by choosing every tenth name? I've left a query about this at Wikipedia talk:Summary style   Will Beback    talk    02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However selected the list compiled does indeed represent people from across a wide inclusive section of a social strata.


 * And shouldn't selection should be by Consensus unless there’s some reliable source out there that actually ranks the relative notability of someone like Joe Namath versus Moby...in relation to TM….(olive (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
 * There's no way we can create a summary list that represents "people from across a wide inclusive section of a social strata". All we have to work with are notable people. There are several reliable sources which have listed prominent practitioners - I quoted several above. If we can't agree on deriving a list from those then let's not include any names, and just say there are many notable practitioners.   Will Beback    talk    03:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To see if we can come to some conclusion on this I want to make sure I am understanding your position correctly and that you understand mine:


 * You suggest that the summary left here after the list is moved must be sourced.


 * I am suggesting that the names here for the most part are already sourced and see no reason why they should be re sourced or doubly sourced. Why is a source that mentions one name, Mia Farrow, for example less reliable than a source that mentions three names.


 * The list we have is a cross section of people... actors, musicians, physicians, and so on, but in choosing names for the summary we are choosing reliably sourced names from a cross-section of the original list itself, not a cross section of practitioners or society or anything outside what already exists within the WP article’s list.


 * Criteria which would give us a good cross section of our original list could include:

-Choosing one or two names from each decade.

-One or two each from the different groups of: doctors, musicians, actors, politicians, newscasters, military, bankers, and so on

-Possibly even age ranges (teen, adult, elderly).


 * I am not tied to TG's list. It was simply a good cross section/summary of the list we already have. I'm fine with creating another list, but again its a consensus that should determine what goes on that list and how its chosen and I am not comfortable speaking for any other editors.(olive (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC))


 * If we are saying "here are representative names" then we are making a positive assertion and, like any such assertion, it should be sourced. I don't know what you mean by "cross-section". To me that implies a little of everything. There are all kinds of people who aren't on that list. I don't see a single Latin American, for example, or even a banker, to use your example. Perhaps "variety" would be more accurate. Some of these individual are well-known for practicing TM, and others are not. I proposed using those who are best known, as shown by their inclusion in lists of people who practice TM. That seems like a straightforward approach and is based on sources rather than a scheme we develop on our own.   Will Beback    talk    20:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is making assertions at all, positive or otherwise. We are simply trying to summarize a list. I'm somewhat in the dark as to what is going on here.


 * You supported a list and then extended it extensively. You have gone on to clearly misunderstood or misinterpret  what I've said. I very specifically suggested a summary to our  list and clearly, excluded anyone  not on this list of reliably sourced, per Wikipedia, names. This discussion concerns a summary of that list and nothing else, so  who isn't on that list is a moot point.


 * I have suggested criteria for designing that summary, but you seem to have dismissed the idea out of hand.  Selecting lists of people who practice TM and them analyzing those lists to decide whom  of those people is mentioned the most times is WP:OR. I'm sorry I simply don't see the logic behind what you are suggesting, nor do I understand why creating a summary for a list that you yourself helped create has become such a complex issue. (olive (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I was taking issue with the term "cross section" as applied to the full list.
 * Regarding the proposal, it seems awfully complicated and depends on many judgements. I've suggested some alternatives. Why not just take every tenth or twentiesh name? That would be a true "cross section". Or we could omit the names and just say something that summarizes the list, like "Many notable people have practiced TM, including musicians, actors, and politicians".   Will Beback    talk    22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And the categories are already there. Should be a very simple matter to select a small sampling of the whole list using those categories….we’re not trying to make claims about the names selected for the summary beyond the fact that they are a sample of what’s on the larger list…no OR in sight. (olive (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Not complicated at all. We simply select a name or two to represent each category. The categories are already in place inherent to the names selected and sourced, and  to the list itself. Taking every tenth or twentieth name is completely random.  We as editors on Wikipedia don't edit randomly, and I don't think we have to give up that much control here of what we choose. (olive (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
 * No, I don't think that's a good idea, for reasons I've explained before. You haven't bothered to respond to a couple of other suggestions I've made. Since we can't agree on a way of picking names, let's just leave them out. The article will be linked from the template, and that's sufficient.   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? You are making a unilateral decision despite discussion here. You have given me no good reason based on what I've actually said, but instead misrepresented what I was saying to make your arguments. I've indeed attempted to respond to all of your  suggestions. You do  not control this article. "I think that's sufficient" is not an adequate explanation per Wikipedia.
 * I had in fact just listed the categories, and had hoped to with your input add a few names under each to move this along. However. Disappointing, but not surprising, I guess.(olive (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Always so pleasant having these discussions with you.
 * The problem with the categories is that they are somewhat arbitrary, and they vary in the number of entries. So including one from the military category gives that category excessive weight, since there is only one entry. Further, your proposal doesn't cover how to pick the names within a category. Finally, you're haven't bothered to respond to the other suggestions I've made. I'm willing to keep discussing this and maybe we'll find a consensus. Meantime, I'll go ahead and move the list to it's own article.   Will Beback    talk    03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will. You make a unilateral decision that shows a lack of respect for the editor you are talking to, and you think that's appropriate, and that I should treat that kind of behaviour as if its acceptable? (olive (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I apologize for posting within your post, Will. For some reason I thought they were two different posts. My error.(olive (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The only "decision" I've made is to suggest moving the list, to which you agreed and to which no one objected. We can keep working on a short summary. Perhaps there'll be some helpful input at the guideline talk page.   Will Beback    talk    04:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My list largely focused on people who'd been mentioned in the media the past year or two. Why can't we do that? TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are several problems with your list. Let's start with the first entry. How many sources have listed Mehmet Oz as a prominent practitioner? As far as I can tell, only one organization newsletter mentions it, in a long profile of that subject. So picking that name to go first, or even to include it in a short list, is undue weight compared to other names which are reported often, including in the last few years, but are omitted entirely. More fundamentally, why should we only pick names that have been mentioned in "the media the past year or two"? TM has been around for over 50 years.   Will Beback    talk    15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked for more input on the WikiProject lists talk page here:.


 * To Will: Perhaps you didn't realize that this comment sounded like you had made a decision. "Since we can't agree on a way of picking names, let's just leave them out. The article will be linked from the template, and that's sufficient." I apologize if I misunderstood your comment.(olive (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I accept your apology. In the future, let's assume good faith. If only there was a way for us achieve greater calmness... ;)    Will Beback    talk    20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are making mountains out of molehills here. Let's just put a summary together with a few names with the sentence "Many notable people have practiced TM, including musicians, actors, and politicians - including David Lynch, Moby, Heather Graham, and David Clegg".  Or something like that.  Then link to the more extensive list.  --BwB (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why Moby?   Will Beback    talk    07:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just picked him out of the air, not attached to him, just though of a musician. You can put in whoever you like, just suggesting a structured sentence with examples. --BwB (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input BWB, but there's a lot of discussion going on on this topic right now so probably no one should add just whatever they want to at this point.(olive (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
 * That sounds a little over bearing ... not meant to ... sorry.(olive (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes it was, but no offense taken. --BwB (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How about if we simply use the first name in each section of the alphabet? Or perhaps we could pick the most prominent practitioner in each field, using Google News Archive to get a sense for prominence. For example, we could include filmmaker David Lynch (who comes up 968 times), actress Heather Graham (who comes up 29 times), musicians Paul McCartney (296 times) and Donovan (252), politicians Joaquim Chissano (20) and Nick Clegg (14), etc. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "in each field" standard is problematic. 26 names would be too many (though it'd be smaller than that, since we don't have anyone whose name starts with "Z"). Taking the five or ten names most frequently mentioned in Google news or Proquest would be OK, though we'd need to be careful in calculating.   Will Beback    talk    14:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not attached to any way of doing this as long as we have a sampling of names that supports what we are saying, that these are notable people... For many readers some will be more notable than others., and perhaps Google News Archive is a good way to decide that.(olive (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * God, this process is painful. What's the big deal here? --BwB (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "big deal" is that TimidGuy thinks that including in the article a list of names of prominent people associated with a controversial subject matter lends "balance" to the mention of the controversies by bolstering the credibility of the subject matter. This isn't a new argument from TG. It's the same exercise that flummoxed a number of editors at the Warnborough College article two years ago, although in the instant case, there is are substantial third-party reliable sources documenting the associations, unlike the situation with that article.   But, the premise that a list of prominent practitioners serves to "balance" an article which contains critical material is fatally flawed, and at its core is an insidious form of inappropriate POV pushing.  It should be more than sufficient to simply say that there are hundreds of prominent people identified in the press as having practiced TM or having positions in the movement, with a reference to the nw list article. Listing names here under the pretext of it being a "summary" is unnecessary gilding the lily. Fladrif (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Flad . You might want to check the discussion, if you haven't. In fact at least eighty of those names on the original list were added by Will Beback who was fine with creating a very long list. What we are discussing is how to adequately summarize in this article, a list that exceeds 100 names.(olive (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * So another opinion....I misread Flad above.
 * Is there some general agreement around the idea of choosing the most notable names in several categories and based on a Google archive search. I'm fine with it. TG suggested it. Is Will's comment agreement? BWB seems fine with anything.(olive (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * For the record: I do not object to adding to the article a list of the five practitioners (and/or bands) who get the most hits in Google News Archive from 1960 to 2010, using a search of the names and "Transcendental Meditation".    Will Beback    talk    19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I could go along with this but....I would like each entry to be from a different category which may happen naturally... I'll look later, tomorrow... Unless someone else has already done this.... I can't see having multiple bands for example. Including the Beatles beyond that five is fine with me.(olive (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I've disagreed with that category scheme repeatedly and continue to. I meant that the Beatles or Beach Boys may be one of the entries, since all the members practiced.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't finished checking every name, but it looks like the most frequently cited names, if we use the bands rather than the individuals, would be: The Beatles, David Lynch, John Hagelin, the Beach Boys, and Donovan. If we only use individuals then it would be David Lynch, John Hagelin, George Harrison, John Lennon, and Donovan.   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All I am saying is (o)...if there are two musicians go to the next person on the list with the greatest number of hits who isn't a musician... so the reader gets a sense of what's  on the master list...The master list isn't a list of one kind of person in one profession.(olive (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I have my misgivings, but let's see how that would look. Using bands (which seems logical since the Beatles get an overwhelming number of hits): The Beatles, David Lynch, John Hagelin, Deepak Chopra, Mia Farrow. That's not so bad.   Will Beback    talk    21:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides the contents of the list, there's also the question of where to put it. The intro now says:
 * During this period, a million people learned the technique, including well-known public figures.[10] By 1998, the global TM organization had taught an estimated four million people, had 1,000 teaching centers, and owned property assets valued at $3.5 billion.[12]
 * That really doesn't summarize anything in the article, so it's make matters worse if we add this list there. the main discussion of the practitioners is in the TMM article. This isn't enough material to start a section of its own. Maybe we can tack it on at the end of the history section. Maybe something like, "Over the years, a number of notable people have learned TM, including...."   Will Beback    talk    01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, for your efforts to come to consensus on this. Here's what bothers me in all of this. There's a great concern here not to give undue weight to, for example, a mention in AARP magazine (the world's largest circulation magazine) that Mehmet Oz does TM. Fine. But the problem is that those who oppose TM have done this very thing in dozens of instances in the article, yet for some reason that's allowed. Okay, sorry for digressing. Now that I've vented you can get back to achieving consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the location, on further thought it probably would go better in the "Teaching" section.
 * As for AARP and Oz, what is it that "those who oppose TM have done"? It was your suggestion to use the Google News archive, and now you're complaining about the result?   Will Beback    talk    14:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume as per the discussion here we will also link to the master list. There seems to be some circular discussion going on here. There was a move away from a paragraph that described more completely the kinds notable of people who have started TM, but now there isn't enough information for a section on that topic. Had we gone with a slightly more comprehensive paragraph we would have a more complete view and placing the content would be easy. (olive (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
 * We have a 170-word long section at Transcendental Meditation movement that covers the general topic already. We could put all of this over there, but I assume that the point of this discussion was to associate some names of celebrity practitioners here. We should not add more material just for the sake of making it long enough for a section when we already have an entire article devoted to the list, along with a general description of practitioners in a third article. This article is about the technique (as I've often seen written here) not the practitioners. So let's keep it short to avoid unnecessary duplication. Now then, is there any objection to placing this sentence at the end of the "Teaching":
 * According to the movement, six million people have been trained in the TM technique. Notable practitioners include The Beatles, David Lynch, John Hagelin, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow. For a more names, see List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners.
 * OK?   Will Beback    talk    15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not my point at all."We should not add more material just for the sake of making it long enough for a section when we already have an entire article devoted to the list", but I'll let that go and suggest the addition is fine with me.(olive (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Seeing no objection, I've posted the text.   Will Beback    talk    17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Google News Archive results

 * Beach Boys 281
 * Mike Love 165
 * Beatles 3,130
 * George Harrison 300
 * John Lennon 279
 * Deepak Chopra 214
 * Donovan 252
 * Clint Eastwood 93
 * Mia Farrow 209
 * John Hagelin 434
 * Merv Griffin 136
 * Doug Henning 186
 * David Lynch 967

 Will Beback   talk    17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AHRQ and NPOV
NPOV is nonnegotiable. There are multiple points of view on the AHRQ assessment of quality. One point of view is that the Jadad scale can be used to assess the quality of meditation studies. Another point of view is that it's not an appropriate measure. Per NPOV I put the latter in the article. That point of view was sourced to: 1) discussion by the authors of the original report acknowledging that the Jadad scale may not be appropriate, 2) two peer-reviewed papers by TM authors, one of which was published alongside the AHRQ article in JACM, 3) two reviews by independent researchers. In addition, I corrected a mischaracterization of the article in JACM by the original AHRQ authors that summarized AHRQ. It was not a further analysis as the article stated. These changes were reverted. I've restored them. TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't about negotiating NPOV. It is about your flagrant misinterpretation and misprepresentation of sources, violation of WP:MEDRS with respect to how sources are summarized, and an blatant insistence on arguing with reliable sources that don't come to the conclusions you want them to come to. I have lost count of your tendatious edits with respect to this specific material, and it is precisely your eggregious misconduct with respect to this material which garnered my attention to this walled garden.  This material has been extensively discussed by neutral editors here and at various independent noticeboards, and now you are radically altering a stable version of this portion of the article pushing the POV of your employer. If you think that pushing this now, just before ArbCom acts, is a good idea, you've got another think coming. Fladrif (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not up to speed on this discussion but let's remember to discuss the content and not the contributor. Several editors have been on this page for a long time and no doubt many of them feel frustrated at times. Even so, we are all required to remain calm and refrain from language that sounds like an attack on another editor "your effregious misconduct", "pushing the POV of your employer", "you've got another thing coming" etc. If you are feeling frustrated to the point of anger maybe its time to take a break. Just a suggestion. Peace to all!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, you haven't addressed my edits. I used five different sources. In what way was I misrepresenting them? Also, I corrected the misrepresentation that the JACM AHRQ article was a further analysis. You haven't explained why you reinserted — twice — the inaccurate characterization. If you feel that it's a further analysis, could you please support your view? And I don't understand why you have twice reinserted the word "all" in the characterization of AHRQ. it didn't look at all studies on meditation. There were whole areas of research that were outside the scope of the review. Please don't just reflexively deep revert. And please address the specifics. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This not adding a sentence per NPOV. This is you violating WP:MEDRS by improperly and inaccurately characterizing the findings of the AHRQ report, arguing with its conclusions in reliance on self-published and unreliable criticisms, and defying the consensus of how this material should be used and summarized. This was an accurate and stable section of the article, the result of extensive discussion not only here but on the Reliable Sources, Fringe and Project Medicine noticeboards, with considerable input from independent, neutral and uninvolved editors.  The consensus was that this attempt to inject an irrelevant aside about criticisms of the Jadad scale - which make no difference whatsoever in the overall conclusion of the report, is a transparent attempt to obfuscate and mislead the reader and should not be allowed to stand. To tendatiously bring this up once again, and pretend that none of that discussion ever took place, demanding further discussion, is wholly improper and not worthy of further response. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here. This has been settled conclusively. Fladrif (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to say why it's violating MEDRS. I don't understand why you refer to the criticisms as self published. They were all published in peer-reviewed journals. The authors of the original report themselves discussed the fact that they Jadad scale may not be an appropriate measure. I don't recall there ever being a discussion of whether it's appropriate to include this, other than Rracecarr's incorrectly saying that the point was mentioned in passing in a long list of items and referring to the original report, whereas the citation was to the published version. The question of whether the Jadad scale is an appropriate tool for assessing meditation research is very relevant -- enough so that JACM devoted a whole article on it that appeared alongside the AHRQ article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not play this game with you. This matter has been definitively settled at this talk page and the applicable noticeboards by independent uninvolved editors, including those with technical and scientific backgrounds that you admit to lacking. For you to claim that you don't remember it does not pass the laugh test. Tendatiously arguing with the AHRQ reports conclusions by burying them in irrelevant discusssion of the Jadad scale is entirely inappropropriate. MEDRS requires an accurate representation of the conclusions of the report. To interject irrelevant, and immaterial objections which make no substantive difference in the conclusions of the report is improper under the applicable Wiki policy, and is a blatant pushing of your POV. The subsequent AHRQ report came to the identical conclusions as the original, whether or not the Jadad scale criteria is used. Do not reinsert this irrelevant, immaterial argumentative text again. Fladrif (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why some of these issues that have been discussed at length keep coming up. And so on.  Will Beback   talk    18:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 27
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 29
 * Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 29

Edit conflict:
 * As we all know, articles on Wikipedia are subject to growth and change. If as TG says five sources make reference to the Jadad scale then that information seems relevant. This is a slow edit war with no solutions in sight so reading or rereading the sources might help clarify.  I don't remember specific references to this point of discussion on an Notice board and even if there were, five sources may make a difference in the NB discussion. Could Flad link to NB discussions. Unless we introduce some different information into this stalemated discussion, I can't see how a solution is possible. (olive (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC))
 * If this material is going to continue to grow then it probably should be split off into a separate article. The pros and cons of the Jadad scale seem like a very extraneous detail for an encyclopedia article on TM.   Will Beback    talk    22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What the sources say
Will and Fladrif, you are free to have the opinion that it's extraneous and irrelevant, but the sources feel it's relevant. Shouldn't we go with what the sources say? Which is:

Ospina:

“The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation.”

“Blinded allocation to treatment may be difficult to implement in meditation trials, especially since many techniques are now openly described on the internet.”

Orme-Johnson:

“However, several reviewers have objected to double blinding in meditation research. They question how it is possible to keep subjects from knowing that they are doing yoga, t’ai chi, qigong, Mindfulness, or the Transcendental Meditation technique, for example, when these techniques are so prevalent in our culture, are available in most cities, and are much discussed in the media. Moreover, it is hardly possible to blind meditation teachers to what they are doing. Double blinding can also be a problem in standard medical research. The Cochrane Handbook notes that ‘from a practical standpoint, concealing allocation up to the point of assignment is always possible, regardless of the study question, but blinding after allocation may be impossible,as in trials comparing surgical with medical treatment.’”

Rainforth:

“The AHRQ report suffered from severe limitations associated with data collection, analytic, and reporting procedures. The review methodology failed to use study design factors that have shown to bias results in behavioral trials of hypertension. The adequacy of baseline BP measurement protocols and the quality and adequacy of controls were ignored. Most of the trials in the AHRQ report compared meditation practices to untreated or waitlist controls. Relevant trials on adolescents and youth were not incorporated. An important methodologic factor that was not considered was blinding of BP assessment. The authors focused on whether trials were double-blinded, which is generally not feasible in behavioral trials, in contrast to pharmacologic trials; indeed, no double-blinding was found among the trials on hypertension. However, no attempt was made to identify single-blinded trials, even though this reduces experimenter bias and several such trials on stress reduction and hypertension exist among the studies included in the AHRQ report. Whereas the report repeatedly emphasized the overall poor quality of meditation studies, appropriate analyses were not conducted on a selected set of well-designed trials.”

Anderson:

“double blinding is not possible with Transcendental Meditation studies”

Per NPOV, this point of view should be represented in the article. If double blinding isn't possible, the studies received a lower quality rating than they should have. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This may be relevant to the arcana of scientific research into the TM technique, but it is a trivial detail in an article about the technique as a whole. Let's split off a research article so that these arcane issue can be covered in the great detail that's apparently required.   Will Beback    talk    11:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I explicitly do not agree to split of the research studies into another article unless we have a complete discussion and complete agreement from the editors here even if that discussion ends up in a mediation. There was a split once, then deleted. What is the reason for splitting off content this time? Seems interesting to me that as soon as this article starts to have content on the research there are attempts to create a split and move the studies off of this article.


 * Accurate information on any study is not trivial,  but is appropriate per creating an encyclopedia, that the last time I looked was within 1% accuracy of Britannica. We are bound to be accurate. I assume no one here wants to include content on Wikipedia that isn't accurate. If it takes a while to discuss that's fine. We're not jn a hurry are we? (olive (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Scientific studies routinely include kinds of minor details, such as how they control for various factors, that may be important to the conduct of the study, but aren't important to the conclusion or to this article. Personally, I don't really care one way or another. But this has been discussed seven times before. Can we have a final discussion of this and settle the matter? Do we need mediation?   Will Beback    talk    02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will. Since you aren't opposed I'll try to explain why it's not arcane and why it's not a minor detail and why I think it can be included in a meaningful and concise way in the article. The AHRQ review did two things: 1) it assessed the quality of the research, and 2) performed meta-analyses to see if conclusions could be drawn about specific effects. The only way one can assess quality is to have some kind of measure, some standard. The reviewers used the Jadad scale. A key component of Jadad is double blinding. But as you can see from the 5 sources, double blinding may not be possible in meditation research. That means that all the TM studies had their score reduced because they weren't double blinded. Critics argued that the Jadad scale wasn't an appropriate measure. So what I wanted to do was state that they used the Jadad scale to assess the studies using control groups to determine quality, but critics say that this that the Jadad scale isn't an appropriate measure for meditation studies.


 * There are other criticisms, too, such as the findings of the peer reviewers (which Orme-Johsnon and Rainforth cite in their published criticism) that the authors of the original report made numerous errors. But I haven't broached those criticisms, nor do I see a need to. I'd like to just present the point of view that the Jadad scale may not be an appropriate measure of quality for meditation research. Maybe we wouldn't even mention double blinding. Or we could put it in a footnote. We could just make the point that the measure they used may not be appropriate to meditation research. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TG's posts on this talk page, as has been the consistent pattern of all of his posts on this study over the past several years, going back well before I ever set eyes on this topic, completely misstate and misprepresent the AHRQ study, its methodology, and its conclusions. He has misstated the selection criteria for studies. He has misstated the quality evaluation. He has misstated the metaanalysis process. He has misrepresented the conclusions. This objection the the use of the Jadad scale - which has already been discussed to death in multiple places (many more than the 7 threads Will cited above) is a complete red herring. It was not the sole criteria used for evaluation in the AHRQ study.  It does not make one whit of difference to the concusions of the study and of other similar studies. Multiple analyses of the TM research (and of meditation research in general), using various evaluation criteria (AHRQ, Cochran, UKentucky etc) all come to the same conclusion - the overwhelming majority of the research is of low quality. Those studies all concluded that one could count on on the fingers of one hand (even after losing a digit to an unfortunate encounter with power tools) the number of high quality studies of TM.  Even using a much less rigorous criteria, not more than 10% of it can be said to be of acceptable quality, and no valid concusions can be reached by that miniscule subset as to the medical efficacy of any meditation practice or the claimed advantages of one method over another. If TG wants to argue with the Jadad scale, which is utterly irrelevant to the overall conclusions of these studies, and even more irrelevant to this article, there is a whole article about the Jadad scale with plusses and minuses where he can go off on whatever tangents tickle his fancy.  Fladrif (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a whole article on the Jadad scale, along with its pros and cons. Rather than covering that ground again here, we can simply link to that article instead.   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, you say that I'm misrepresenting the AHRQ study. That's not the point. I'm not citing AHRQ. I'm citing five peer-reviewed sources. Do you feel that I misrepresented them? If so, how? And why did you delete sourced material? If you felt I had misrepresented those five sources, you should have changed it rather than delete. If you feel they're wrong, you need to find a source that says so. Will, you didn't really address my point, which is that if you don't like mentioning Jadad we can represent the point of view in a general way. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted phrase
What happened to "reaffirmed the weaknesses of the research,"?  Will Beback   talk    14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc James had incorrectly written that the JACM article was a further analysis of the data, and therefore wrote that it reaffirmed the weaknesses of the research. But it wasn't a further analysis. The original review was released online, and then the authors endeavored to publish it in segments in academic journals. The article that appeared in JACM was a summary of sections I & II of the original report, in a somewhat revised form, such as including a discussion of issues not covered in the original (e.g., Jadad and blinding). TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So the problem is with the word "reaffirmed"? Would "affirmed" be more accurate?   Will Beback    talk    18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was simply a summary of the first two sections of the original report that was released online along with a more extended discussion of issues that had been raised regarding their methodology. TimidGuy (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Characterization sentence
This sentence seems out of place in this section of the article "The New York Times reports that people who leave the movement refer to it as a cult, and the university its training ground." It is not about the TM technique and would be better suited in the TMM article, I feel. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that reasoning a bit more?   Will Beback    talk    18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand: The original source says:
 * Maharishi University claims it is not a religious institution. But people who have left the movement call transcendental meditation a cult, and the university its training ground.
 * So the problem may just be a subtle error in summarizing the source. I'll fix that by changng the ambiguous "it" to "TM".   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like we need to fix this section. Most of the press articles on TM are positive. Why do we only mention two that are negative? For example, we cite a negative article that's appeared in the New York Times and ignore the positive ones. Look at search results from the archive. The first page of results are 1) Maharishi's obituary, 2) NY Times blog on TM curbing heart attacks, 3) a positive profile of David Lynch and his involvement with TM, 4) a positive article on TM in schools, 5) a positive article on the McCartney TM fundraiser, 6) an article (not viewable) about a talk by Maharishi, 7) positive article about TM lowering blood pressure, and 8) an article (not viewable) from 1972 about TM relieving stress. It seems like we should put in a more balanced selection of articles or delete this section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree. The entire "Characterizations" section needs scrutiny per NPOV. However, the most glaring and obvious concern is the subsection on "The press". References to TM have been in the press for many years yet, the subsection lists two responses from the press both negative and both referencing cult. How can two references characterize years of press on any topic? Just a google news archive search on "Transcendental  Meditation" alone returns 19,300 hits. How can that be characterized at all, let alone in two entries.(olive (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree that the section is incomplete, but TG's list seems to include side issues. For example, the DLF fundraiser is amply covered in the DLF article. The health issues are also covered at length elsewhere. Material on the Maharishi belongs in that article. And so on. But anything that isn't covered elsewhere might well be added, within reason.   Will Beback    talk   `


 * I think it may not be a matter of being incomplete but of being accurate. The press generally characterizes TM as a beneficial meditation technique. A search on "Transcendental Meditation" in Google News archives turns up (depending on which server you hit) 10,100 results. And 50% of those (5,080) are related to research and/or health. If you search on "Transcendental Meditation" and cult, you get 602 results. That's 6%. Plus, of that 6% only a handful are actually articles about TM being a cult, whereas there are thousands of articles in which the whole article is about the health benefits. It would be more accurate to say that the press characterizes TM as a beneficial meditation technique. Or preferably we could delete this section. Either we resort to Original Research and make our own generalization, or we list hundreds of articles on all the different ways that TM is characterized in the press.


 * And it's a factual error to say that the press's characterizations of the health benefits are elsewhere in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the section itself is inaccurate, and violates NPOV. As for the "press section", non OR sources would be those that say, the press has reacted in such and such a way to TM, rather than what has been done here, editors have selected articles on TM in the press. Unless we have sources that comment on TM in the press I would suggest deletion.(olive (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC))
 * It sounds like editors are suggesting expanding this with so much content that it would bneed to be split into a standalone article. As a stopgap, maybe BwB's original suggestion of just moveing this material to the TMM article would be sufficient. If editors want to write an article on "pree characterizations of TM" then that additional material would be well-suited for it.   Will Beback    talk    22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Not at all. My comment very specifically suggests deletion, and that the present subsection on press  is OR. The content should be about and based on sources that very specifically discuss how the press has reacted to TM. I can't imagine more than a few sources at the most that make that kind of reference, but not sure of that. Are you suggesting an article be created based on OR?(olive (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Perhaps I misunderstnad TG's comments. I thought he was wanting to use several thousand citations for a section on the views of TM in the press.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting deleting it, because I don't know how else to deal with it. Google News archive makes it clear that TM is generally characterized as a meditation technique that has benefits. But we can't make that generalization ourselves. At the same time, we can't have, as we now do, a section that says the press characterizes TM as a cult because it violates NPOV. Your suggestion was to add more characterizations. But how would that work in practice? Are we going to start listing scores of articles? That would be necessary if, per NPOV, we were to represent the views proportionately. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with TG. Absent a source that actually discusses the treatment of TM in the press, it'd be hard to write a comprehensive treatment of this topic without going through hundreds of press accounts.   Will Beback    talk    06:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and deleted the "Press" section, as the discussion above seems to indicate agreement on this. --BwB (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will and BwB. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This sentence:
 * According a 2010 article in the LA Times, "the TM technique uses a mantra to help people achieve a relaxed state". 

Was another "characterization by the press", even though it hadn't been in that section. To be consistent with the other material we deleted, I've removed that as well. If we need to describe the technique I'm sure we can find a better source, and it should go elsewhere in the article.  Will Beback   talk    18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To Will: Are you planning and removing all content sourced to newspapers in these articles? As you know the the discussion on removal of two sources was in specific reference to a subsection on "The press" under characterizations, and you subsequently moved that content to the another article, which has its own problems. You also were involved in that discussion. You have removed sourced content with out discussion. I won't revert a change but I'll assume that if you revert we are plunging into a discussion on removal of all content sourced to the press.(olive (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
 * How is this different than the other characterization that we just deleted? Didn't you just revert the edit I made? We describe the technique in the beginning of the article, so I don't see how a blogger at the L.A. Times should be included in this section anyway. Maybe we should move that and restore the deleted material to that initial description? I'm open to alternatives.    Will Beback    talk    18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy: The source may not be reliable per WP:MEDRS, but that should have been discussed. However, this does not comparer to the discussion we had on the subsection on the press. You are opening up a complex discussion and I would suggest moving slowly and with discussion and agreement. I'm sure we can come to some compliant agreements with out fuss.(olive (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Who added this material and when did we discuss it? To have a discussion about removing material and then right after that to add similar material, seems either like an oversite or like an intentional act.    Will Beback    talk    20:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you like to clarify what you mean. I have no idea what you're talking about.(olive (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Let me simplify that. Who added this material, and why?   Will Beback    talk    20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Until now, I was not involved in the this thread, nor had I read it. However, now, after having read it and examined the edit that was made at its conclusion, I agree with Will that the addition of a new characterization by a single press source, whether pro or con, in that same section is not appropriate. I further agree with Will's edit here which has moved the sentence to the section on the use of the mantra. My apologies to Will and others who participated in this earlier discussion, for any confusion I may have created.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that sentence bring to the article? Is an L.A. Times blog the best available source for the assertion that TM uses a mantra to induce a state of relaxation? It seems to be that for these core issues we should be relying on scholarly sources, of which there are no lack.   Will Beback    talk    16:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the context, the sentence doesn't really seem to be helpful. It's pretty clear that the mantra is used in a technique for relaxation. If there's a need to say this, let's find a better source for it.   Will Beback    talk    01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion
Sullivan is an interesting commentator, but he's certainly no theologian. In respect to this topic, he's pretty much just a random individual giving an opinion. While researching other topics I've come across a number of sources that brand TM as incompatible with Christianity, and even make specific claims based on scriptural references. If we're going to start adding folks like Sullivan than it seems appropriate to add some of those opposing views from other writers. Does that make sense?  Will Beback   talk    18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew Sullivan, political commentator for The Atlantic, wrote in 2010 that he does not consider his practice of Transcendental Meditation to be a “contradiction of my faith in Christ”. 
 * Sullivan is more than "just a random individual giving an opinion". He has written several books, including "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back." HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-018877-4, in which he writes about religion extensively.  See also the "Religion" section of the Wiki article on Andrew Sullivan. --BwB (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people write books. Many write books on religion. I'm suggesting using some more of them as sources. For example, Transcendental misconceptions By R. D. Scott. I usually don't give sources that talk about false prophets much attention, but if we're expanding this section then all views should be included.   Will Beback    talk    18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed the Sullivan text in the Religion section because at present it is heavily weighted towards one POV which in my opinion does not reflect the weight given in mainstream souces. I'm open to discussion on what kind of sources would work best to relieve the section of undue weight as there are other sources available on both sides of the fence.-- — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like most of the sources I've seen say something to the effect that, "the movement says it is not a religion, but it has many of the aspects of a religion". To properly reflect the diversity of views found in mainstream sources we'd first need to collect a large number and wide range of such sources. I've collected quite a few, incidental to other research. I suggest we post relevant excerpts to Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion. After a while maybe we'll have enough to determine the weight given in mainstream sources.   Will Beback    talk    04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this suggestion too. --BwB (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an opportunity to gather sources and assess how the subject is characterized in the press. Many articles that mention Tm as a religion also comment on its cult status and articles that characterize it in non-religious, non-cult terms should also be noted. This may be a valuable exercise for us to get a sense of how dominant the various characterizations of TM are, as portrayed by the the press etc.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, thanks for your efforts on that page. I hope to get to that project soon myself. We shouldn't limit the scope to the press, who are notoriously bad at reporting spiritual issues. We may have to use scholarly books and journals for the best sources.  Will Beback   talk    06:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment scales used in AHRQ meditation review
I went ahead and added this again even though Fladrif and Doc have repeatedly deleted. I think it's important to include this because according to a recent AHRQ report, there are 20 scales, 11 checklists, 10 rating systems, and 8 other guidance documents related to randomized controlled trials. Seems like we should let the reader know which one was used. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When, once upon a time, I characterized Benson's statement that his own earlier research studies on TM and drug/alcohol use were fatally flawed because everyone in the "TM group" had already given up drugs & alcohol for a month before commencing TM instruction, improperly biasing the study, as withdrawing his conclusions, I was accused of misprepresenting what Benson had written. So, imagine my amusement that the Ospina report stating that "the scale may be criticized" is characterized as "authors of the review said that the scale they used for assessing the research may not be an appropriate measure for research on meditation" No. That is not what they said. They said that it might be criticized. They did not say that it may not be appropropriate. That seriously, and fundamentally, misrepresents what the report actually said. Fladrif (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't write that Benson had withdrawn his conclusions, which itself wouldn't have been completely accurate. You wrote "Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies." Let me quote Woonpton here:


 * "'Sorry, but one researcher, pointing out the flaws in his research and suggesting the necessity for better research being done in future (which is a far cry from 'retracting his conclusions' and usually is read as code for 'I need more funding to continue and improve this research') does not by any stretch equate to Some researchers (plural) of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects. Since the Time article was published the same month as the study was published (that was the occasion for the Time article, after all), it makes no sense to say that Benson's remarks constitituted a 'subsequent retraction.' He was simply putting the research in context for the Time reporter, cautioning Time not to make more of the research than it warranted, as any responsible researcher would do when talking to the media about research that's attracted media attention.'"


 * Originally I had simply quoted Ospina, but it was deleted. I think my summary is accurate but I'm certainly open to changing the wording. Here are some of the relevant points from Ospina:


 * "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation. Though various criteria to assess methodological quality of studies are available in the scientific literature,58 there is no consensus on which quality assessment tool can be recommended without reservation.59"
 * "In our approach to quality assessment, we have not addressed other important aspects that contribute to the external validity of a trial (e.g., how representative the participants are, how the treatment providers compare to intended eventual users of the intervention)."


 * It seems like my wording was fair. They're recognizing the various reasons why Jadad may not be an appropriate measure — the blinding issue, the failure to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation (which isn't an issue when the subject is simply taking a pill), the issue of external validity. Maybe for now we can just quote it. Otherwise, please propose alternate wording. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This level of detail, about a review of studies, might belong in an article about the research, but it is too much detail for an encyclopedia article on TM.   Will Beback    talk    20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above detailed text is for reference only. I don't think that Timid is suggesting we include the text in the article. Timid can you post your wording here so we can see it? Thanks.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to disagree with Will. If a review says that most of the research is poor and if that review used an assessment scale that wasn't suited to meditation, then that's important to mention. Here's the sourced text that Fladrif deleted: "and the authors of the review said that the scale they used for assessing the research may not be an appropriate measure for research on meditation." TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TimidGuy's edit summary has so thorougly poisoned the well that I'm unwilling to drink. I'll simply say that (i) you are continuing to grossly misrepreent what the authors said and (ii) Will is exactly correct - take this red herring to the Jadad scale article where it belongs, if at all. Fladrif (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct that the authors also say this about the Jadad scale? If the authors give various opinions about Jadad then we should try to summarize the entire range, not just pick one.  Will Beback   talk    08:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The selection of the Jadad scale has relative merit since it uses a simple and easy to understand approach that incorporates the most important individual components of internal validity: randomization, blinding, and handling of patient attrition. Based on empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, these aspects should always be assessed when evaluating the quality of an RCT. [..] The Jadad scale is the most commonly used quality scale for RCTs in pharmacological and nonpharmacological reviews. The decision to use both the Jadad scale and the concealment of allocation approach reflects our emphasis on using the same methodological standards to assess the quality of research in meditation as applied to other areas of CAM research.
 * Thanks, Will. Good point. How about, "The authors said that they used the Jadad scale to assess quality because it's simple and most commonly used, and because they wanted to use the same standard as applied to other areas of alternative medicine research. However, the said that it may be argued that the Jadad scale may not be suited for meditation research because double blinding may not be possible, the scale doesn't assess whether the treatment was effectively implemented, and because it doesn't account for whether the results are generalizable." TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fladrif is more expert on this issue than I am, so I can't judge if that's a a proper summary or not, though it does seem more complete. What if the clauses were inverted: "It has potential problems but was used because..." Since they did use it despite the possible issues it would seem more logical to have the sentence reflect that in its structure.   Will Beback    talk    23:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This ia a complete red herring. The authors said: we used the Jadad scale because we thought it was appropriate for the followoing reasons. Others may argue that it is inappropriate for research on meditation because it is impossible to double-blind meditation research. That doesn't mean that the authors agreed with that. It doesn't mean that any research that wasn't double-blinded is "good" research. As the Jadad scale article says, some people argue that it is inappropriate to use for research on surgery, as it is impossible to double blind research on surgery. It doesnt mean that all research on surgery is good research. Bottom lime: the researchers said they believed that the scales they used (Jadad isn't the only one) were appropriate for the meta-analysis, and that per those scales, the vast majority of meditation research was crap. TM research included. That others may argue that the scales they used are impossibly high bars is a topic for another article. Not for this one. Fladrif (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to stray too far, but I don't understand why it's not possible to conduct a double-blind experiment with TM. There are various kinds of meditation, so the practitioner doesn't have to be told which kind he is being trained to do, and the observer doesn't need to know either. And, FWIW, there has been a double-blind study of knee surgery. (the patients chosen for the placebo were anesthetized and had an incision made, while the sounds of a full surgery were played. The physicians who did the follow-up were not informed who was in which group.) Of course we have to follow what the sources say, but I don't see this as a logical and necessary conclusion.    Will Beback    talk    01:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise a very good point. I'm not at all sure that it's not impossible to double-blind meditation research, and impossible to double-blind TM research in particular. I don't design medical studies for a living, but I'm a clever lad, and I can imagine some general outlines of how one might go about doing that. But, the folks who argue that the AHRQ meta-analysis unfairly penalizes the TM research by marking it down for failing to double-blind posit that it can't be done. I don't know if that's true or not. Even if it is true, it tells us nothing whatsoever about whether any of the TM research is any good or not. Which is why this is a ocmplete red herring.Fladrif (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference whether the authors agreed with the point or not. The important thing is that they articulated another point of view that is not now in the article and that, per NPOV, should be. It's an important point because if single blinding were considered to be sufficient, the studies would score higher. All of the NIH studies have been single blinded (that is, assessor blinded as in the example of the arthroscopic knee surgery example above). And there are other, important factors that should be used to assess the quality of meditation, such as the effectiveness of treatment implementation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is non-negotiable. It is a fundamental violation of MEDRS to cherry pick through a study or report to highlight the portions that put one's own POV in the best light possible, and it is an especially eggregious violation to misrepresent the conclusions of the authors to advance one's POV. Again, this is a red herring that does not belong in this article.  Arguing with the Jadad scale does not turn bad research into good research - consider that some of the research did qualify as "good" on these scales, which puts the lie to the assertion that TM research simply can't meet the standards the authors chose. It can, apparently. The vast majority of it does not.  If you want to argue that Jadad scale is unfair to meditation research, there is a whole article devoted to the subject of the Jadad scale and its uses. Fladrif (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not cherry picking and it's not misrepresenting the conclusions. The issues regarding assessment are a major point of discussion int the JACM article. The conclusion will still clearly be stated. Regarding the overall quality of the research, there are multiple points of view. Right now the article pretty much exclusively represents the point of view of AHRQ. I think we need to address this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal
Articles should be compact and readable. Some sections of this article keep getting longer, and we can't make everything bigger without bursting at the seams. A while ago, some content from this article was moved to Transcendental Meditation movement, and the "history" section was split between the two articles. After further expansion, the Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement was split from the TMM article. I propose a simple, four-way reorganization:

Merge the "history" sections from this article and the TMM article into a new article, "History of Transcendental Meditation", and merge the "organizations" article back to the TMM article. That would result in three articles: TM, TMM, and TM history. The TM article to cover philosophy, practice, and science; the TMM article to cover the organizational aspects, and the history article to cover events.

I think it was a mistake to split the "history" material because it stifled improvement, and this will rectify that error. Removing the "history" section from this article will allow more room for research and other details. It will also address concerns about the split of the "organization" article from TMM. This can be accomplished with hardly any text changes. Altogether, it's a better arrangement of the existing material and a better foundation for future improvements.  Will Beback   talk    07:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will, for the suggestions. I would very much like to merge organizations back into the TMM article. I guess I don't have an opinion on the history material, since I've pretty much ignored that content. Reading it for the first time I see that there are a number of issues that could be addressed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think about this and its repercussions, so will comment later. (olive (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I think it is worth having a "history" section in both the TM and the TMM article and not combine them into a generic "History of TM". The organization changed many times over the 50+ years, but the TM techniques has remained pretty constant. So I do not see the need to combine history - one is technique, the other organization. --BwB (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A technique that hasn't changed in 50 years doesn't have a history. The "need" is two-fold: first, it was an arbitrary split to begin with, and it makes it very difficult to expand or improve the history. Second, we can't merge back the organizational material to the TMM article without splitting out the history section, otherwise the article is too long. Likewise, it would allow this article's other sections, like research, to expand. So there are solid reasons for doing so. I don't see any downside to it.   Will Beback    talk    22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Near as I can tell from the sources, the technique has changed. First of all, the name of it has changed several times. Second, the mantras, and the basis on which they are assigned have changed over time. Third, the theoretical explanation for how and why it works has changed over time. Finally, all the instructors were required to be recertified, based on these changes. Some of the details of this may be hard to source per Wiki standards, but the broad outlines of it are fairly easy to source to reliable secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that this reply concerns the point of whether there has been a history of TM, not about the overall reorganization proposal.   Will Beback    talk    05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. I could go either way on the reorg, though I think that, at minimum, the Organizations article could and perhaps should be merged with the Movement article. Fladrif (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus there is the history of where and when TM was first taught in various countries, or the history of the cost of TM, or the history of the famous people who learned the technique, or the history of how TM was promoted, or the history of the research on TM, etc. etc. --BwB (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Taught by whom? Taught by the Transcendental Mediation movement. Who set the cost and collected the fees? The Transcendental Mediation movement. Who promoted TM? The Transcendental Mediation movement. So the same entry, for example, "The SRM taught TM in Fiji for the first time in 1971. It organized a press conference to announce the classes, which it said would cost $100." Is that an event in TM history or TMM history? Hard to say. If the material was merged that wouldn't even be a concern. Is there any reason not to do the proposed reorganization?   Will Beback    talk    10:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Founded by whom? Maharishi, initially taught by whom? Maharishi, organization structure created by whom? Maharishi, TM course fees set by whom? Maharishi Advanced techniques created and introduced by whom? Maharishi.  NLP founded by whom?  Maharishi  TM research suggested by whom? Maharishi  Everything could be put under one article - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. --BwB (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My concern is that in creating articles that are more general in scope rather than establishing the conditions for specificity we could create two tricky situations; one, a situation where content becomes too general, and inclusive of content not closely related to the article, dumping ground, and two, discussion on what belongs where becoming more contentious rather than less contentious.
 * TM orgs content that was moved from the TMM article is a different situation in that, that content is what the topic is about... The TMM is its organizations, according to the definition here anyway... Moving that content and leaving summaries in place in effect gutted the article of legitimate content (albeit it boring content) and shifted "weight " to the cult/sect section... not a neutral situation. So whether the org content is moved back or not is for me a different discussion than creating several, large, more general articles. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's what I see at this point.(olive (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
 * A history article would not be general. It'd be specifically focused on covering the events in the history of TM and the movement that supports it. Moving the history material is part of the reorganization because of the length issues. Editors have made it clear that they don't want to split the research material, yet they keep wanting to make it longer. At the same time, some editors want to move the organizational material back to the TMM article, which brings back the problem of that article being too long. So it solves all of those problems at once.   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But creates other problems, I feel. --BwB (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What problems do you think it will cause?   Will Beback    talk    20:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mixing TM technique and organization. Should be kept separate I think. --BwB (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? How are the histories of TM and of the movement that teaches TM naturally separate? What problems would be caused by having a single history section to cover both?     Will Beback    talk    18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if we're concerned about the length of the TMM article, we should prune it. The cult section, for example, is way out of balance. We don't need to list everything that everyone has ever said about it being a cult. The vast majority of articles in the mainstream media don't characterize it as a cult. We should condense that and other material, and merge the organizations. Part of the problem with dumping ground articles is keeping them balanced. Having fewer articles forces us to more closely consider weight and balance, affording greater opportunity to be fair. TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no surprise that TG wishes the "cult" section of the TMM article reduced, considering that the TM editors have deleted that material before. However none of that addresses the proposal at hand.   Will Beback    talk    18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll agree to your proposal. However, I have serious concerns about dumping content willy nilly into articles with out noting weight, balance, and establishing clear guidelines about what belongs where. So, I would expect that discussion on weight and balance will be honored as legitimate discussion. I do think TM history and TMMovement history are different, but it might be possible to create separate sections in an over arching article on these two areas.(olive (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks. As for the history material itself, it'll just have the effect of re-uniting the history material to the state before the "technique/movement" split, and then splitting it off as a whole to a new article with old material- "history". And then, at the same time, undoing the "movement/organizations" split. It really does more to restore previously stable material than to change it. I know there's fear of change. There was with the previous split, too, but that turned-out OK. I'll go ahead and do the proposed re-organization, and we can always undo it if it looks wrong.   Will Beback    talk    08:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * History of Transcendental Meditation. I think folks won't find it so bad. Aside from adding sketch of an intro, there are no changes to the text re-merged from this and the TMM article. At the same time I merged the organizations back into the TMM article, which is looking better too. Again, there were no changes to the text. In some respects, this was a set of pretty minor changes which maintained the existing text. In other respects this was a much-needed move that allows the topic to grow and be maintained in a more orderly fashion. (Sometimes there's a perfectly good bush that's just in the wrong place, and a little spade-work makes the garden grow better.) On a practical level, it simply undoes two two prior splits.   Will Beback    talk    11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there consensus for the creation of this new article? --BwB (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was discussed and I didn't see any specific objections. Is there any problem with how it it is now?   Will Beback    talk    10:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading back thru the discussion above, it seems like, Timid, Flad and I raised objections to the creation of a history article that combined both the history of the TM technique and the TMM history. I was not convinced of the need to create this new article and did not consent to it. --BwB (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are misprepresenting my statement above. I made no objection to a history article. If you wish to cite a statement I have made to support an argument you are making, reflect that statement accurately. Please refactor your comment. Fladrif (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I refactor my comment on Flad. Sorry. --BwB (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" isn't the same as unanimous consent. TG said "I guess I don't have an opinion on the history material, since I've pretty much ignored that content" and endorsed the organization merger. I asked you repeatedly if you has any specific objection and you just replied with a general concern. Anyway, now that it has been done do you see any actual problems with it?   Will Beback    talk    21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I endorse merging organizations into TMM but didn't agree to a separate history article, and I raised a specific objection related to a core policy of Wikipedia — NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What problem or problems are there with the reorganization? (The objection you raised seemed to have been about the size of the "cult" section, which had nothing to do with this proposal.)    Will Beback    talk    17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Usage of "Transcendental Meditation"
About 99% of the time the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used in the mainstream media and academic literature to mean a meditation technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. Take any sampling you want from any index and this will be the case. And about 99% of the time in this article we follow this common usage. However, on rare occasions, such as Sagan, for example, "Transcendental Meditation" is used in a different sense. In order to avoid confusion, my feeling is that we should either rewrite the source so that the sense adheres to convention, or we should explain the particular and atypical sense in which it's being used by a particular author. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Technique vs. movement"? I'd be interested in how we'd conduct a sampling to prove the 99% estimate. How can we explain Sagan's meaning? What sense is he using?  Could you suggest some language?    Will Beback    talk    11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had thought the wording of this was settled based on the archived discussion. The Anon IP's reversions prompted Will to make an edit to the wording that unfortunately reopened the issue. TimidGuy initially stated in that discussion that he believed that Sagan was writing about the Maharishi Effect and the TM-Sidhi Program. Olive stated that she believed that Sagan was writing about the TM Technique. After I weighted in, TimidGuy changed the language to refer to SCI rather than TM. I think that was an appropriate change, and accurately reflected what I understand Sagan to have meant. I propose that we go back to that language.Fladrif (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Fladrif's suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sagan doesn't mention SCI. He refers specifically to TM. To quote:
 * Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience-by many criteria already a religion-is the Hindu doctrine of transcendental meditation (TM).
 * I'm going to change it back to "TM".While a small amount of interpretation may be necessary at times, I don't see how we could interpret Sagan to be referring to SCI.   Will Beback    talk    16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That paragraph in our article is on SCI so, that content on Sagan and TM should be moved I would think.(olive (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC))
 * The paragraph I edited is in the lead. I don't think we need to devote a paragraph there exclusively to SCI, since we only have a few lines about it in the article. We might merge the little paragraph in the lead with the paragraph on scientific research.   Will Beback    talk    17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it was changed in the text too. I've changed that back too. We can't just put words in peoples' mouths. As for which section Sagan's view belongs in, I don't care much. These sentences have been moved around. For a short time they were under a "science" heading. Perhaps something like "Characterizations by skeptics and other critics" would be the right heading, which could include Sagan, Randi, Gardner, and probably some others we can find.   Will Beback    talk    17:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish we could address my original point of nonstandard usage. Sagan here is using "Transcendental Meditation" in a nonstandard way. His definition comprises Hindu doctrine, the Maharishi Effect, the TM-Sidhi program.religion, Maharishi's talks, and Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. He's using the term to refer to anything having to do with Maharishi. It's very misleading the way we have it in the article. As I originally said, this minor and nonstandard usage needs to be addressed in general, either by using a different term or by stipulating how the author was using it. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Standard" and "nonstandard" according to whom? From what I've read, many writers bundle the TM-Sidhi program, etc, with TM. While it may not be standard it isn't unusual either. What we can't do is put word in the mouth of a source by deciding on our own that the writer says X when she really means Y. I see no reason to think that Sagan was familiar with SCI itself and that he mistakenly wrote "TM" when he meant "SCI", but if we have a source for that then I'd support adding it. If we want this section to be about the scientific principles underlying TM then Sagan's point is directly relevant. In this context, I think it's OK. However I think the Gardner quote is out of place and we could move it over to the TMM article, or down to the religious issues section here.   Will Beback    talk    10:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I agree that we shouldn't use SCI, and I'm no longer suggesting that. Standard usage refers to the way the term is used most of the time. If you look at the scientific literature, "Transcendental Meditation" exclusively refers to a meditation technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. Mainstream media almost exclusively uses the term in the same way. (As can be seen by a search in Google News archives, for example.) This article begins by defining TM as a technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. If some author uses TM to mean something else, we should make that clear. Or we should simply rephrase. Sagan is using "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to Maharishi's teachings. This article is about Transcendental Meditation, and we have to be clear what we're talking about. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see either 1) links that prove this theory, or 2) specifics suggestions for how to fix the "problem".   Will Beback    talk    11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can look at the scientific literature and see that this is the case. Check out any of the scientific studies that this article links to. Here are 337 mainstream media reports that define Transcendental Meditation as a meditation technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. A specific solution in this case would be to rephrase what he wrote. We could say "Carl Sagan has characterized the teachings of Maharishi as pseudoscience." TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Using a similar search, I get about 33 media reports that mention "pseduoscience". Just using that metric we can see that just under 10% as many have the one view expressed as the other. So it's a sizable view. (These Google searches are a very poor measure, so we shouldn't read too much into the results.) Sagan is a notable commenter on science. TM can be both a relaxation technique and a pseudo-science. It's not our job to decide to cover only one of those views, or to include only sources from proponents. NPOV requires that we include all significant POVs.
 * Looking at the source, we might be able to finesse this. He writes, "Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience ... is the Hindu doctrine of transcendental meditation." We could say "Carl Sagan has characterized the 'Hindu doctrine' of TM as pseudoscience". That's a little closer to the source.    Will Beback    talk    10:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was making some other small changes to the section so I went ahead to made that proposed edit. We can still talk about improving it.   Will Beback    talk    13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will. We'd need to also change it in the lead. But I feel like we still need to address the issue of nonstandard usage. Many of those 33 sources are using the term TM in the standard way. Sagan's usage is referring to a a variety of Maharishi's teachings, which he has labeled TM. The evidence he gives for it being pseudoscience are things such as Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect. Since this is nonstandard usage, and since he's clearly including these other things in what he means by TM, then it would be better to simply say that he says that Maharishi's teachings are pseudoscience. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But that isn't what he says. We follow the sources, not what we think the sources mean to say. The suggestion I made (and implemented) makes it clear that he's talking about the doctrines which underly TM. I don't see how we can get any closer to the source, but if anyone has an idea then let's hear it. We certainly don't want to go further from the source by putting words in his mouth that he didn't say. As for this "nonstandard usage" issue, I don't think that's a helpful direction to pursue. We're not here to enforce orthodox usages. Just the opposite: we're here to reflect all significant points of view.   Will Beback    talk    11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't enforcing anything. We're just being clear. This article says that TM is a meditation technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. Sagan is using TM in a different sense. That was the consensus when we discussed this before. He's not talking about doctrines which underlie TM. He doesn't say that. If he's not using TM in a more general sense than it's defined here, then why does he give all those examples? He's giving a topic sentence and then supporting with examples. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sagan addresses "the Hindu doctrine of transcendental meditation". The article discusses the Hindu/Vedic roots of TM as well as the scientific aspects. Sagan bridges those. His view of TM seems very relevant to what we're writing about here.    Will Beback    talk    23:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of newspapers as sources in research section
Why not collapse this or add as a subpage or sand box. This doesn't belong on a talk page. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I did collapse it.   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To accomodate Olive's concern, I've moved it to Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies . 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I see. When I looked it wasn't collapsed. You must have been collapsing while I was posting.(olive (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Discussion
Tucker added material in the research section that uses newspapers as sources. MEDRS says to avoid using popular media. In addition, if we open this section up the using popular media, then we could fairly include information from the 5,000 Google News search results that overwhelmingly say that research shows that TM benefits health and well-being. I propose that we delete these and limit this section to the secondary science literature, which is more manageable and more in line with MEDRS. Further, Cullen's comment that it's not possible to do research on schoolchildren is belied by the dozens of studies that have been done. Also, Ernst's opinion is already heavily represented in the section, as he's a coauthor of two of the critical reviews that are included: 2004 blood pressure review and 2003 cognitive function review. The latter is used as a source in two different places. So he's in the article three times already without needing to be there a fourth. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the material you're discussing? Without digging through the edit history I don't know what Tucker added.
 * We use many sources repeatedly, so 3 or 4 times isn't necessarily excessive.   Will Beback    talk    11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sentences in question: "Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, has said 'there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children. The data that exist are all deeply flawed.'[90]" "Educational psychologist Kairen Cullen, associate fellow of the British Psychological Society, speaking of TM in a pediatric setting has said it '...is a very difficult sample group to access and it would be very hard to provide empirical evidence - any claims would therefore be pretty speculative'.[90]" Again, I propose that we adhere to MEDRS and limit the section to the secondary scientific literature rather than opening it up to the thousands of media reports on Transcendental Meditation research. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These aren't media reports of the research - they're direct, attributed quotations from scientists in relevant fields talking about the research. It's the difference between a newspaper saying that a study shows widgets have dimples, and a a quote from a researcher saying the conclusion sounds unlikely.   Will Beback    talk    11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets be consistent with how we use MEDRS. If we want to include comments from the press we probably need a new section for that. Using statements from the press gives us no context, and including such  statements in a section on the studies or reviews of the studies themselves give credence to a comment that it may not deserve. Because the context of the study is not given, we have no way of judging.(olive (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC))


 * ''The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease, or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[8] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms.
 * A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. (WP:MEDRS)
 * Thanks for sharing this with us, Olive. Very helpful. --BwB (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever we decide we should be consistent.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest we get an outside views on this. I've posted a request for input at WT:MEDRS. However note that MEDRS is only a guideline. WP:NPOV, a core policy, requires that we include all significant points of view.   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, points of view and all aspects of a article must be laid out per reliable sources. NPOV and RS are intimately interconnected.(olive (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

(Coming from the MEDRS talkpage request). These newspaper reports aren't being used to support a hard medical fact (which would be breaking MEDRS guidelines). However, I'm generally wary of statements like "Professor BigBrain from CleverMinds university and fellow of the Royal College of BrightFolk says ..." statements because it looks like the editors of the article are trying to prove a point in front of the readers. It can also have the effect of establishing a fact in a reader's mind, which is actually just the opinion of some person, because it is being presented as coming from an authority figure. Newspapers are notoriously unable to wisely pick who to interview, and in the interest of "balance" will often interview some over-opinionated but uninformed and misguided soul to balance someone who has spent his career on the subject. So while these two folk look respected and wise, what is to stop some editor quoting the opinion of someone less so. And who would arbitrate to decide which opinions to quote. It might just lead to a escalation of A said this but B said that, leaving the reader confused. I'm not saying there aren't times when a quoted notable opinion could be useful, but we should be careful such quotes aren't abused and especially so in controversial articles.

I think it may be appropriate to use Ernst's quote as an example of the views of mainstream science commenting on TM research. This could be done if the controversy itself was notable (which I guess it is). I'm less convinced that Cullen's opinion is important enough to quote. We mustn't just quote someone because we agree with the opinion and want to use the quote to highlight it. Colin°Talk 08:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well stated, Colin. Thanks. This has tended to happen on the TM and related articles and needs adjusted. --BwB (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Colin. Good points. Consider this regarding Ernst: A reporter calls him up and asks about the research, and he gives a top-of-the-head reply. What is the likelihood that he's done a recent review of the literature and has examined the studies? Yet wouldn't that be necessary to to make the sort of generalization that he's made? If one, on the other hand, relies on the secondary literature such as a review article, then one knows exactly what indexes the author has surveyed and for what time period. And don't the research reviews represent the view of mainstream science? TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend using Ernst's quote as a way of saying (as a fact) TM research is flawed. You are right that we don't know how considered and up-to-date that opinion is.
 * One problem is review articles are biased (in a good way, it just doesn't serve our purpose) against discussing flawed research. A literature review might just decline to mention the study that (in the author's opinion) was flawed or the studies that are now superseded by newer/better research. A systematic review will list the inclusion criteria and the studies chosen, but not waste much time explicitly detailing all the studies that failed to make the grade. A systematic review that said "We reviewed the literature and it was all crap." might find it hard to get published. However, it would amuse me to see a PubMed abstract of "Here we review the literature on XX." and when you pay your $30 you get the PDF with the extra words "...and it was all crap" :-) Colin°Talk 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, some reviews have looked over TM studies and rejected them for inclusion because they were too weak in one respect or another. What do you think is the best way of reflecting that fact here?   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you writing an article on TM or on TM research? In an ideal world, we'd just state facts and avoid all this "some studies have found" stuff, and certainly the distraction of "but some of those studies weren't very good because...". Where the research hasn't established hard facts, then sometimes we need to guide the reader about how certain or uncertain something is and why that is so, but remember that such discussion isn't the point of the article. If some of the benefits/drawbacks of TM have failed to be firmly proven, it might be better to just say nothing than to waffle on about something that may or may not be the case. This is an encyclopaedia describing our current knowledge as fairly as possible, not a science magazine discussing the process of science, or a newspaper trying to uncover the Truth. Colin°Talk 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point. However this article doesn't exist in a vacuum or an ideal world. To begin with, note the section headings: "Research on Transcendental Meditation", "Research quality", and "Research funding". To some extent, we're writing about the research itself and not just the effects of th technique. If we were writing about some conventional medical treatment then it'd be best to omit the worthless studies without mentioning them. But the TM movement is noted by journalists for frequently brandishing the sheer number of studies as proof, in and of itself, of the efficacy of its technologies. (Never mind that many of those were not about TM or were not published in peer-reviewed journals). Just look on Google for "over 500 studies". or "there are over 600 studies". (So much for precision...) So I think we do need to address, if only briefly, the disparity between the claims about the research made in the media and across the internet, and what is supported by studies that are worthy of inclusion in reviews. We don't need to belabor it, but I think we need to say something like, "Of the studies conducted on blood pressure and TM, reviewers only found three (or whatever) that meet strict standards." That there are over 600 studies showing that TM works is one POV, and the NPOV policy requires that we include other significant views, including the view that not all of those 600 studies were done to prevailing scientific standards.    Will Beback    talk    08:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: For further evidence that we're discussing the research itself, and not just the outcomes, look at the following thread: .   Will Beback    talk    08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Colin, again I think you make good points. Regarding your point about bad research simply being ignored, what I'm finding is that all of the major areas of TM research are covered in review articles. Typically these are articles looking at the effects of meditation or research on alternative medicine. They appear in journals such as the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, Pediatrics, American Psychologist, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, and American Journal of Hypertension. And regarding simply stating facts, I think we should do this. There are many findings that are accepted. For example, we could simply say that TM lowers blood pressure, since there are many studies and reviews and meta-analyses that report this. We could eliminate hundreds of words.

Will, whether or not particular studies meet strict standards is a matter of opinion. There's not some absolute-truth-in-the-sky judgment about research. My feeling is that if we want to say that most of the research is flawed, as AHRQ does, then we should say according to what standard. And then also give the other point of view. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If a reviewer sets an objective standard for research, then the fact that some studies qualify while others don't isn't really an opinion.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any place in the article that says anything like "500 hundred studies show". So there doesn't seem to be any reason to dispute or disprove a slogan from TM advertisements unless this is a characterization commonly used by the media. The link to the Google search mentioned above seemd to reference only web sites related to the TM organization or paid listing services. I did not see any news articles on that Google search page so I'm skeptical about the premise that "500 studies show" is a common characterization by the media that needs to be represented and discussed in the article.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like we should amend the article. It's a common assertion:
 * Moved to "Sources" above.   Will Beback    talk    03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it appears that this is a common claim, stretching from 1984 to the present. It is made directly by such TM movement notables as John Hagelin, Tony Nader, David Orme-Johnson and Ashley Deans. If we don't include this information under "Research" then maybe we should create a section on "Promotion". The article is incomplete with some mention of the claimed 500 or 600 studies, and the controversies about them.   Will Beback    talk    22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several issues here: As I have suggested many times there is a difference between noting the research that has been done in an area and using that research as a source. There is also a difference between peer reviewed studies and other non peer reviewed studies. Yes, the TM organization has conducted comments on between 500-600 hundred studies maybe more, but of those, 340-350 are peer reviewed, and possibly useful for our purposes as sources. Lets not conflate a section on how the press comments on the studies, how this article mentions the studies, whether the article is talking about peer reviewed studies, and using the studies/reviews  as sources. I've been suggesting a section on the response in the press to the TM research, and articles and comments in the press on the research. Is this something others are interested in.(olive (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * These aren't just comments by reporters - they include many statements attributed to the movement itself. I don't know where we discussed this before, but it's overdue. Based on how frequently and prominently these assertions have been made, they should receive due weight in the article.   Will Beback    talk    23:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I got 10,000 hits on research on Transcendental Mediation we'll want to make sure NPOV is carefully dealt with in the article. Obviously the press has dealt with the research in multiple ways, and we need to deal with that. I think for the sake of the reader we'll have to deal with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I'm not sure how to do that at this point. Any suggestions?(olive (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * We're talking here about the issue of research, and how it's been promoted by the movement in the press. I'm not sure what "inaccuracies and inconsistencies" you're talking about. Could you clarify that?   Will Beback    talk    00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We are? I'm not. I'm talking about how the TM research is represented/presented in the press...That's how this discussion began, discussing some quotes in the press. This" issue of research, and how it's been promoted by the movement in the press" sounds a little contrived, somehow.(olive (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, we have numerous sources that either quote TM personnel citing the 500 or 600 sources, or mention those studies and the controvery surrounding them. And we have reviews that discount the value of many of those studies. It's clearly a significant issue, with more sources than for most assertions in the article. How do you propose we summarize these sources?   Will Beback    talk    03:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Every area of research has studies of widely varying quality. That's because in a new field you don't really know exactly what to study and how to measure it. So you begin with pilot studies — small studies, sometimes without controls, just to get a sense for what to look at. Then once you get a sense for what to research and how, then you start doing controlled trials. After you have a solid research program in place and strongly suggestive results, then you try to get funding for larger randomized controlled trials, which typically cost around $2 million for 100 subjects. Once you have a track record of research, then research reviews identify the strongest studies, correlate them, and see if any tentative or firm conclusions can be drawn. There are now many such reviews. It's not a scandal that the research varies in regard to rigor: that's the nature of the process. The FDA doesn't look at the lab rat studies on Prozac and say, "Most of the research on Prozac is of poor quality." Rather, it looks at the two randomized controlled trials that the drug company submitted for review (no matter how many trials may have shown no greater effect compared to a placebo) and then approves Prozac on the basis of those two trials. In addition, the process I described is mostly relevant to clinical research. From what I understand, basic research (such as the EEG and FMRI studies) works somewhat differently, with less of a need for large randomized controlled trials to demonstrate an effect and sometimes not even needing controls because certain parameters have already been established. Perhaps there's a marketing issue, but there's not really a research controversy. We can simply report what the secondary sources say, adhering to MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the FDA has determined that Prozac has been proven helpful in 2 studies, but has rejected 598 studies as inadequate, what would we think of the Prozac company if it kept claiming in its ads that over 600 studies had proven its effectiveness? OK, call it a marketing issue rather than a research issue. More accurately, it's an issue of using research in marketing. If the movement is going to claim that there are hundreds of studies that prove its products work, and if there are reliable secondary sources which comment on that claim, then we should include those views.   Will Beback    talk    11:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you consider this to be an unbiased comment and or reason for including a section based on OR. "what would we think of the Prozac company if it kept claiming in its ads that over 600 studies had proven its effectiveness? " We could take any phrase and then look through the sources to find content to prove the phrase. We could say anything. The TM organization has made comments about their research .... that's fine, but cobbling this together to discredit which is what you are saying, isn't neutral . How do you propose to deal with the 10,000 hits on TM research in the press. Is your section a neutral look at that research and how its reported?  And as for the statement I quoted, I don't make judgements on such information. Its either something that should be included or not. I'm not judging the company. Apparently you are.(olive (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
 * We can't comment on (rubbish) the "600 studies" claim unless others have done so in reliable sources. We can't even note that they repeat this claim based only on Google search results. However, the "10,000 hits on TM research in the press" is a red herring for exactly the same reason. WP:WEIGHT is used to proportion discussion aspects based on the proportion the aspect is discussed within reliable sources. We don't count reliable sources, we read them. And the count of Google hits is a measure of nothing. It is not Google's mission to make that number an accurate reflection of anything: it will grow as Google indexes more and people archive more stuff online, and it will shrink as Google's search algorithms improve to return more relevant data. Increasingly it will vary from user to user and from country to country. Colin°Talk 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "rubbish".
 * I'm not suggesting using Google hits to influence weight or to use Google search results as some sort of support for claims. I'm suggesting that the 10,000 hits give or take thousands is still a general indicator of how often the press has carried press information on studies on the TM research, positive or negative, and gives clues as to places to look for some of those comments ... if and only if...we have a section that looks at the response of the press to TM research .... I personally don't think such a section is needed but if others want to include comments in the press then probably a section needs to be created for it. That's what this thread was originally discussing. I'm not sure what your point is unless you have misunderstood what I was saying or I have misunderstood you. (olive (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC))


 * I'm completely in the dark as to what you're saying unless as I said you misinterpreted what I was saying, so I would really appreciate any further clarification. I may be misunderstanding something here so your explanation would help. Thanks Colin.(olive (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC))


 * It looked liked Will was trying to build a case for commenting (in the article) in a negative way about the repeated claims made for TM (600 studies) that are perhaps a gross exaggeration and/or misleading measure of the strength of solid scientific evidence for TM. I'm pointing out that we can only do this if someone else has. But I'm also concerned that you are trying to sink any negative newspaper comments on TM by saying something like "that's only one comment out of 10,000". Perhaps you aren't. I'm just saying: don't use Google to measure WP:WEIGHT. Colin°Talk 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No. My comment was not an attempt to hide anything, and I'm sorry you saw it that way. I'm somewhat familiar with the way the press has responded to TM research both positive and negative. My comment was ongoing in terms of this thread which was what to do with comments by the press on the TM research, and as pertaining to Will suggestion which I feel is a form of OR based on cherry picking information. He probably didn't see it that way. Google news archives has its place but never as a source for anything. 10,000 google hits gives a sense of the extent to which the research has been cited, and selectively choosing a particular way of categorizing that information had to be in my mind inaccurate, selective, and non comprehensive. Thanks for your patience in explaining your points. (olive (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)) Ok. Rereading your comment a few times. Are you saying that we can't comment on the claims made about the TM research being rubbish or being anything else by creating a section and then listing comments that make comments on the research...implying the research is rubbish or not rubbish ... and such a section would be OR. And if this is what you are saying this is also what I've been trying to say obviously ineffectively ... that if we want to add content on the quality of the research is must be stated in a reliable source. Another try.(olive (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC))
 * We can't comment on anything. But we can and should summarize significant comments found in reliable secondary sources. "Over 600 studies" is one of the movement's main promotional claims. That fact has been noted repeatedly in mainstream sources, some of whom have commented on it. There's no original research involved in summarizing their commentary - just the opposite, it's what we do. Wikipedia articles should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. For the record, I haven't even looked at Google News yet.
 * I was reviewing old talk pages last night and found that, even here, there have been claims of validity based on the sheer number of published papers alone.   Will Beback    talk    20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are "commenting" Will when create the kind of list you are. We create content and articles based on reliable sources rather  than  summarize sources. I assume you reject Colin's position and mine. What's the next step?(olive (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC))
 * That's not commenting, that's research. If you read them over, you'll see that several refer to the abundance of studies or discuss their promotion. Summarizing those would not be original research. I don't understand the objection to summarizing sources. The only alternative would be quoting them verbatim, and that's something we do only occasionally.   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Colin's comment: "We can't comment on (rubbish) the "600 studies" claim unless others have done so in reliable sources." I agree entirely. However since we do have reliable sources which comment on the studies and their number we can use them. And since the movement frequently touts the hundreds of studies in the mainstream media, then we can use the mainstream media for other views of those sources.    Will Beback    talk    03:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Following up on an earlier point: The FDA doesn't reject 598 studies as being inadequate, because the drug companies don't submit studies that don't show an effect. They're called unpublished studies. There can be any number of unpublished studies, but the FDA only considers those that are submitted. Regarding the use of newspapers, I really don't feel comfortable using them as sources to comment on research quality. That should be left to scholarly journals. Will, if you have a source that criticizes the marketing claim regarding the number of studies, it seems like a sentence or two could be added. It may be a fair criticism. I feel like the article already makes that point. It says that there have been over 700 studies, that many were not peer reviewed, and that most of the research is poor quality. TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the FDA analogy as helpful. But if a company claimed in advertising that 600 studies showed the efficacy of a drug, then I expect they'd have to support that claim. We don't seem to have anything on the use of the studies for promotional purposes in the article now. We do have this sentence: A 2003 review that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function said that many of the 700 studies on TM have been produced by researchers directly associated with the TM movement and/or had not been peer reviewed. I don't have access to it and the abstract doesn't mention 700 studies so I can't comment.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TM ads, web sites etc. make claims of 500/600 studies but we are here to reflect sources not to pick and choose TM claims that we want to promote or criticize. The issue here is about the media's coverage of the TM research in general. The press has reported on TM research, on several hundred, if not thousands of occasions over the past 40 years. The question is do we want to include in this article, reports from the press on the TM research, including those news articles that mention the 500/600 studies? --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find any discussions of the 500/600 studies that I've missed please add them.


 * I wonder if Will would mind giving a sense of how this section should be worded. Right now what I'm seeing is OR, and that's my first and biggest concern. What we can't do, is take content from sources,  and compile them to create meaning. For example, if there were sources that specifically say the TM movement either falsely or rightly uses it research to support claims about the technique, we could then create a section that is about TM organization and claims of research to support its technique...assuming that's a significant subject matter for inclusion in an article. To use an example: In an article on Border Collies we can't list behaviours recognized in Border Collies:  heel nipping at other animals and small children, staring, tearing up furniture, shredding toys, and create a section that says "Signs of dysfunctional Border Collies." The editor who does this is not only creating new information on Border Collies, but in this case is giving the reader incorrect information, since some of these bahaviours can be  normal BC behaviours. However, as far as the reader knows these are dysfunctional behaviours,  because that's what the sections says. What we would have to do is write a section using sources as references that describe specifically in the references the dysfunctional aspects of Border Collie behaviour, then title the section "Dysfunctional aspects of Border Collie behaviour". I see this as a critical issue in how we approach these articles since In my mind what we are dealing with here is a direct contraposition to the Original Research policy. Anyway, I may be missing something here but this is what I'm seeing right now.(olive (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC))
 * What we have here is research from reliable sources, which is the opposite of original research. As for Border Collies, if breeders promoted their puppies with reference to their heel nipping, and if we had reliable secondary sources commenting on that issue, then it'd be an appropriate topic for the article. In this case, we have numerous claims about the 500/600 studies made in mainstream media sources, and we have comments about those claims that also appear in mainstream media sources. The idea that a Wikipedia guideline prevents us from reporting a controversy regarding marketing claims does not appear to be correct.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research can and often is based on reliable sources, but is synthesized, that is, the sources are being used to make another piece of information not contained in the sources themselves. Reliable sources are also incorrectly used if they are being compiled to make an implied point as happens when the content is not taken from a source that specifically refers to whatever is the being noted in the section heading.  I have no problem with including content about controversy in marketing claims.... but that there is a controversy must be cited in the sources. We can't label the heading controversy, and then just add comments implying controversy .... that's OR, reliable sources or not. I just don't know what this section is meant to be to even know which sources would or could be included. This is an important issue because there is also content in the TMM article in the cult /sect sections that is also OR content .....I would like to ask that you not add a section on whatever this is going to be.  I  would like to take this to dispute resolution following Arbitration in the effort to try and resolve the perceived OR issue here in low level dispute resolution procedure as was suggested by one of the Arbs. Colin has already given a comment which doesn't seem to be enough so perhaps, help from mediation is the next step. Would you agree to that to  see what others say? (olive (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm having trouble following your logic. I thought we were talking about Border Collies? ;) But seriously, no "original research" has occurred because nothing has been added to the article, nor has any specific text even been proposed. If you'd like to discuss something in the TMM article then it has a talk page of its own. I don't see where Colin objected to summarizing what reliable sources sources say about the promotion of TM using these 500/600 studies. Could you quote the post where he did so? I'm open to all forms of dispute resolution, but frankly I don't see what the dispute is. All I've done here is 1) argue that if claims are made in the mainstream media, and if there are comments on those claims, then we should include something about that in the article, and 2) collect relevant sources. What is there to mediate?   Will Beback    talk    01:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The title of this thread is "The Use of Newspapers as Sources in the Research section. The discussion seems to continue to get sidetracked and I'm not seeing any progress. Maybe mediation is not a bad idea. I don't see the harm in it and it would help keep things on track.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What aspect of the issue is going undiscussed? We're still talking about how the research is discussed in newspapers.   Will Beback    talk    20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any progress. Is there any component of the discussion where we have found consensus or agreement? If so please summarize it here and let's see if everyone can agree on some aspect of this issue. If there is no progress, than I think meditation is a good idea. Also, while I appreciate the long list of sources above, it makes the thread extremely difficult to navigate. Would the editor who placed them consider moving them to a subpage and leaving just a link here on the thread? That would be very helpful. Thank you.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step away from this discussion for now. In my mind we are dealing with a fundamental concern about an interpretation of Policy. Until we have that worked out what content and where we put it is secondary. My thought that was that with some dispute resolution we could avoid any long battles which I really have no desire to get into. ( olive (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Further discussion
I've gone ahead and added material based on the sources above. I placed it in the "Research quality (and promotion)" section. Comments?  Will Beback   talk    00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem related to quality, so I put it in a separate section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the discussion of this has moved down to, which is fine.   Will Beback    talk    11:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rounding - Explain this Edit
TimidGuy made this edit asserting in his edit summary, and without supporting references, that "it's been decades since this was practiced". That statement is demonstrably false. Current official TM websites currently offer rounding courses at MUM and Skelmersdale in the UK. TM publiciations state that the "residence courses" apply the practice of rounding. Residence courses are widely offered at various TM facilities around the world. Other sources (blogs, social media sites, self-published etc) which would not qualify as Reliable sources, confirm that rounding is a part of the residence courses and the various Invincibility Assemblies. Clearly "rounding" is a current, and not some long-abandoned former practice. In light of these facts, and sources I have reverted the edit. Perhaps TG can explain why he asserts that rounding is an abandoned historical practice when the TM Movement currently advertises and promotes rounding courses. Fladrif (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd be interested in hearing why someone would think that this practice has ended. Personal experience? If so that's a very bad way to edit, and experienced users should know better. I'm also at a loss to understand this related edit by Olive: She changed "rounding" to "rounds", a word I don't think I've ever seen used to describe the process. Can Olive provide a source for "rounds"?   Will Beback    talk    19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment here referred to what a round actually is as stated by the source in the article, and not to the term itself. The source is 1978, and that's a long time ago in terms of any teaching as those who teach know, and as has been discussed before much has changed in the TM Movement so its seems an obvious move to add the date as context...I can't speak for anyone else but my comment is based on common sense, and I still don't see why a fuss is being made about adding a date.... This is not a big issue in terms of the article... do what you want with it. My point is about context nothing else. (olive (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC))


 * "More intensive meditation is part of a process called "rounding". According to a former member, a round begins with yoga postures called asanas and breathing techniques called pranayama, then a normal meditation routine followed by more pranayama. A round takes about 50 minutes and might be repeated seven or eight times in a day -from the Transcendental Meditation article.


 * One round many rounds....A round takes about 50 minutes and might be repeated seven or eight times in a day
 * Rounding is a verb, a process....
 * My correction was in aid of making the line similar to the Title of the article Round, and the other entries. The title isn't rounding, its Round... I used the noun as it is used in our source as you can see (quoted above)... If you prefer something else please feel free to change my edits.(olive (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * It's just that "rounding" is the commonly used term. The disambiguation page includes both "round" and "rounding", so that's not a problem. We should keep the description there short. As it happens, I've just another decent source which uses "round", and which connects it to residence courses, so I'll add that info here.   Will Beback    talk    21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and trimmed it down to Rounding, a process performed by practitioners of Transcendental Meditation. A disambiguation page should contain only enough info to help the reader find the right page.   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if we have any sources that say rounding has changed since 1978, or include other details, then let's use those too.   Will Beback    talk    21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is critical. One of the sources I cited above says that the residence courses included "traditional" rounding. If it is traditional, is seems hard to imagine that it has changed in recent years.  We would need a source to support any claim that it is now different.  TG didn't just add a date. His edit, and the edit summary falsely assert that it is a former practice, not a current one.  And, given that rounding is being taught and practiced at MUM and in Fairfield, I find this just mind boggling. Also, to a point of olive's edit that Will questioned, is rounding really just occasional, at least for some practioners? This  Q&A with MUM Professor Fred Travis would indicate that rounding is not confined to the weekend or week-long residence courses, but that some people do it for months or even years, in something called the "Creating Coherence Program". Travis acknowledges that there are groups of TM pracitioners who engage in long-term rounding, though he states that "there is no systematic research that indicates that long rounding, under proper supervision, causes permanent mental problems", in response to the questions about adverse effects of long-term rounding. I recognize that it isn't a RS for an article, but I question the characterization of rounding as something that is done occasionally if some people are doing it continually for months and years at a time. Fladrif (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Google search brings up many references to "Creating Coherence Program", but not an actual definition. One site says that "World Peace Assemblies and the Creating Coherence Program are for those practising the TM-Sidhi Program." However I got the impression that rounding can be performed by those who haven't learned TM-Sidhi or any other advanced techniques. Another site says, The Creating Coherence Program (currently available on the Invincible America Course) allows you to enjoy the tremendous benefits of extended program while continuing daily activities and family responsibilities during the day. That implies it isn't a full-time program, whereas I understand the residence courses are one week or even just weekend-long intensive sessions. As for the reliable source issue with the Travis postings, I'm not sure how different that source is than the Orme-Johnson website we cite. I don't think we should use either.   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion probably belongs on the Round disambiguation talk page rather than here. (olive (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * This is the article where we have the content on rounding, which is what most of this discussion concerns. Splitting it up between talk pages won't make the discussion any simpler. Are there any other issues about that page?   Will Beback    talk    23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif asked me to explain my edit: I made that edit because the type of rounding course that was described was discontinued around 1980. The source was from 1978. So I located the claim in time. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the source for that type of rounding being discontinued in 1980? I believe I've seen other sources that mention yoga postures and breathing exercises as being parts of the process.   Will Beback    talk    11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "structure" of a Round is still used on these types of courses, but the "number" of Rounds may have changed. I am not sure if we can find a reference for this, as with other types of advanced courses, the TMM does not "publish" the content of the course. As we have been told, the source being used is form 1978, 22 years old. --BwB (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If 1978 were 22 years ago we wouldn't be here editing Wikipedia. ;) We use many sources from the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. More sources are better. If we can find newer sources that have different accounts then let's add those. But introducing our own personal knowledge, unsupported by any source, is not allowed per WP:NOR. The edit TG made was not just unsupported but outright incorrect since rounding sessions are still offered by the movement.    Will Beback    talk    23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the math lesson, Will. Should be 32 years, of course.  The point is that we may struggle to find a source to support the Rounding info.  And of course I was not proposing using "personal knowledge" as content for this article. We should always find the sources to support the text accurately. --BwB (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, arithmetic. I used to get gold stars in math until we started studying long division - and it was downhill from there.
 * While it doesn't list the duration or frequency, these old books seems to agree on the basic form of the round.
 * Religion and culture in Canada By Peter Slater, Canadian Society for the Study of Religion
 * The transcendental meditation primer: how to stop tension & start living By Patricia Drake Hemingway
 * A Time magazine 1975 mention:
 * Other psychiatrists, always wary of anyone seeming to poach on their preserve, say that the TM organization does not screen prospective meditators and that the technique—especially a sequence of extra meditations called "rounding"—might well cause unstable persons to go over the edge.
 * Though I don't have a high opinion of all of Time's coverage. There are many other sources around that don't quite meet the reliability threshold, but which seem to confirm it is still offered and still has the same basic elements.    Will Beback    talk    10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Current sources describe rounding, as currently practiced in virtually identical terms. The Derbyshire TM Org website advertises rounding as part of residence courses, describing it as follows: For new meditators becoming established in their practice, a residence course - with longer programmes of meditation, pranayama and yoga asanas (rounding) - is a first step towards deepening experience of the transcendent. [emphasis added] A 2008 advert for a TM retreat on the Isle of Wight contains a schedule: Three rounds – this comprises; 15 minutes yoga asanas, 5 minutes pranayama, 20 minutes meditation, 10 minutes, rest, repeated 3 times[Emphasis added] This particular series of retreats involved three "rounds" each morning, and one each afternoon. That adds up to the same elements, and the same 50 minutes per "round" desribed in the older sources. It would appear that rounding hasn't changed at all in 30+ years. Fladrif (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article describes seven or eight rounds per day. Flad's examples describe 3 in the morning I in the afternoon. I would think that the solution to the concern here is to simply supply a date for the 'seven or eight rounds per day program' and another date and a reliable source for the newer version of the rounding program. The reader is given accurate information and we are  not making judgement calls on the content. Isn't that a workable solution?(olive (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC))
 * No. The article say that it "might be repeated seven or eight times". That a particular retreat program involves four times does not mean that some practitioners do not repeat it seven, eight or even more times. Perhaps other programs do exactly that. Some non RS sources indicate that some practitioners do rounding for hours on end even today. We have to rely on verifiable, reliable sources. Sources contemporaneous with the source used here describe Teacher Training Courses including up to 14 hourse per day of rounding, with lesser amounts on other days. Does that make the source wrong because it only described seven or eight hours of rounding? Red-flagging the date of the source raises serious WP:NORWP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to imply that the source is stale, when there is no reliable, verifiable source to support what is being implied. Fladrif (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you see adding a date as context, and even possibly another short comment with a more recent date as violating any policy or guideline rather than a means to establish a time line for "rounding". Especially, it is difficult to understand, how this can be even remotely construed as some kind of non neutral edit, that creates POV. I'm looking for accuracy and clarity for the reader. However, although other editors may wish to argue this further, I don't see the point. I consider the information to be necessary for accuracy, and leaving it out as a weakness, but so be it, from my side.(olive (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Perhaps there are different "rounding" schedules for different courses and that the numbers of "rounds" per day varied over time, and could be different for basic TM practitioners and people doing the TM-Sidhi program. I am in favor of giving the reader as much information as possible, supported by reliable sources and present in a neutral way. And I think a "time stamp" is good to provide to the reader, again supported by good sources. --BwB (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Olive -- that was the thinking behind my original edit. We need to locate it in time, since there have obviously been changes. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "There have obviously been changes"? What changes? Other than the bald assertion without sources that "it's been decades since this was practiced", no one has said what it is that has allegedly changed, and no one has supplied any source. BwB has speculated that the number of rounds may be different at different places and at different times, but that falls short of a statement of fact, sourced or unsourced. And, it doesn't make the current text inaccurate or outdated. The only thing that is obvious is that the structure of rounding hasn't changed at all in 30+ years, according to current sources. Fladrif (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As everyone here knows, there are no RS for any internal details about any facet of TM. WP should be more flexible so that people who know things can contribute them. Anyway, rounding is Maharishi's foundation for rapid growth in consciousness; it has always been used as one part of both the teacher training and TM-Sidhi courses. Yes, it has changed. But only in the amount done. (Rounding is wonderful--I do it frequently and it improves my life. Gives me energy and better clarity of thought.) David Spector (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fladrif, the source you found from a later date says three rounds in the morning and one in the afternoon. That's significantly different from eight rounds. And that structure of three and one may not be the same in all countries. Also, residence courses are only for those who haven't learned the TM-Sidhi program. In any case, the reason for locating it in time is that the sort of long rounding described — 8 rounds per day — hasn't been offered since probably the early 70s. If you think this shouldn't be located in time, if you think that the structure of eight rounds is still offered, then I think you'd need a source that says so. Otherwise it's better to locate it in time. And I don't see any reason not to cite the date of the source.  TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. you have this exactly backwards. If you think that the structure of as many as seven or eight rounds is no longer offered, then you need to find a reliable source that says so.  We have a reliable source that says that it might be repeated seven or eight times. It is not imcumbent on other editors to prove that this continues to be the case; if it is not the case, you need to provide something other than your say-so that it is no longer offered anywhere. Your uncertainty as to how many times rounding is repeated in various contries, and your confining your comment to residence courses indicate to me, not only is there no reliable source to support your statement, but that you are unable to say with any certainty from your limited personal experience that long rounding of 7, 8 or more rounds is not currently being practiced. As I said above, some non-RS sources indicate that it is currently being practiced for hours on end, and over months if not years, by some practitioners.
 * The source is explicitly dated. Anyone who looks at the footnotes can see the date. We do not need to hold the readers' hands. Red-flagging the date for the purpose of implying that the information is stale when there is no reliable source supporting that implication is entirely improper. As I said above, it is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV to red flag something in an article for the purpose of calling the statement into question when there is no reliable source to support the implied criticism.
 * Further, it would appear from your comment that you do not dispute that rounding is still practiced, and that the structure of rounding is unchanged from the 1970's, which makes the edit which you made, viewed in the best possible light, extremely misleading, if not false. Is 8 rounds in a day and half, versus 7 or 8 rounds in a day really "significantly different"? That is a matter of your personal judgment, unsupported by any reliable source. The assertion that it is "significantly different" is barred by WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V. David's well-intended comment notwithstanding, this is an encyclopedia, and as such it cannot rely on personal experience and opinion. Fladrif (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flad on this point. If the structure of a TM "round" has changed, or if the the number of "rounds" per day is different now than when the sources was published, then a new sources will need to be found to support this if it is to be included in the article. However, I do not object to rewording the current text to say something like "A 1978 report said...." --BwB (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The over-attribution in these articles is a continuing problem, suggesting that things that are simple matters of fact are somehow some author's opinion. When we're talking about opinions, attribution is appropriate. When we're talking about undisputed facts, it is not. It would appear that the structure of a "round" hasn't changed at all. It would also appear that, while it is sometimes called rounding and sometimes not, a number of other meditatation practices use precisely the same rounding procedure. There's nothing secret or proprietary about it. There are assertions based on personal experience, without sources, that the number of rounds may differ from time to time and place to place. Is it sufficient to satisfy the concerns expressed, yet still accurately reflect the sources we have, to simply say, that rounding is taught at Residence Courses, and consists of several (avoiding precise numbers) repetitions of a sequence, or "round"  of asana yoga postures, pranayama breathing exercises, regular TM and rest, each round taking approximately 50 minutes.  Is this in any dispute whatsoever? Can we agree that whether we're talking about 3 or 4, or 7 or 8, or 14 or 15 repetitions, that "several" covers it? All of the sources we have, reliable and otherwise, say the same thing at varying level of details. If it is not in dispute, then this is not a matter of someone's opinion about the practice, but a simple statement of fact for which attribution and dating in the text is neither necessary nor appropriate. Sourcing and footnoting it is more than sufficient. Fladrif (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted Flad's change slightly, but am not attached to the changes. I made the changes in one edit so they can be reverted.(olive (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't have any problems with those changes. Fladrif (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like the new version. Thanks all. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The revised version works. I think that the description only applies to TM and not the Sidhis, but since this article is about TM that shouldn't be a problem. TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorg Lede
I spend some time today doing a reorg of the content in lede without changing any of the specific text. We present a good deal of information to the reader in the lede and I felt that some of the paragraphs were too dense and contained info that was not always logically connected. The current version may still be improved, but it provides a good spring-board to a further rewrite/reorg with the help of other editors. --BwB (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this. Be sure to check WP:LEAD. I think Will said, for example, that it should only be four paragraphs. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I checked. Should be four paragraphs. Frankly, I think we should omit stuff that isn't TM, like the TM-Sidhi program and SCI. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree to removing TM-Sidhi and SCI from the lead. They are key parts of the overall TM theory and program. If I understand correctly, every TM practitioner is instructed in the basis of SCI and every TM teacher is trained in TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback    talk    21:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well no, every TM teacher does not do the Sidhis, Many teachers were trained before there were TM Sidhis. SCI is tricky I found while researching the topic. SCI is a name that is used to refer both to a generalized theory but also to a course that provides structure to that theory. Those learning the TM technique are not given a course in SCI, and I don't think those learning TM Sidhis are from what I see in the sources. But there may be some simple theoretical aspects that are used in the teaching of the TM technique that are also found in the 33 lesson course. So maybe that helps clarify....


 * Perhaps inclusion of these two areas might make more sense in the lead of we created a paragraph that made mention of those techniques that require the TM technique as a basis -more of a general statement that summarizes what we have in the article. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC))


 * We have a whole section devoted to SCI, and another devoted to advanced techniques. That's why they are mentioend in the intro. As for teachers, it's my understanding that all teachers had to be recertified, though I have no idea what was involved in that. If we find out more we can add it to the "teaching" section.   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Something like this:( I'm not sure we need all of those dates in a lead). I'd like to see some kind of attribution for Randi such as, author and debunker, because the "James Randi" with no explanation as to who he is or why his comment might be significant seems quite "bald". (olive (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

''Beyond the TM technique itself, the Maharishi developed a system to describe the underlying theory of the TM technique called the Science of Creative Intelligence(SCI),  and developed as well, other advanced techniques including the TM Sidhi program, that the movement said could give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and the ability to generate a peace-inducing field. James Randi says SCI has "no scientific characteristics”.''

''The Maharishi developed the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), a system of theoretical principles to underly his meditation technique. James Randi says SCI has "no scientific characteristics".[20][19] In the mid-1970s, the Transcendental Meditation program was expanded to include an "advanced form", the TM-Sidhi program, that the movement said could give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and could generate a peace-inducing field.[7][21]''
 * Current version:


 * The extra verbiage doesn't make it any clearer. "a system to describe the underlying theory"- Why not just call it the "underlying theory"? I don't see how that draft is any improvement. We could replace "In the mid-1970s, the Transcendental Meditation program was expanded to include" with a briefer "He later expanded the TM program to include". That gets rid of the passive voice too.   Will Beback    talk    07:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Randi, I don't see the purpose of moving that sentence away from the SCI sentence, since he's commenting on SCI. If we need to identify him here then "skeptic" is probably the best description.   Will Beback    talk    07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cochrane review in lead
The lead is supposed to be a summary. It's not clear why it specifically mentions the Cochrane review and not any of the other dozen or so reviews cited in the article. I suggest we delete this from the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you propose to replace them?   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "them." I was suggesting that we remove Cochrane from the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean don't we want to say something about the scientific studies? If we're not citing a high-level review than what are we going to say. That there are over 600 studies which prove that TM works? I'm open to suggestions, but the research is a big part of the article so we need to say something about it.    Will Beback    talk    11:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Numerous scientific studies have appeared in per review journals citing the benefits of TM. However, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality.[18]  A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19]"  Or something like that. --BwB (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, but Fladrif is more on top of the science issues than I am so he might have a comment.   Will Beback    talk    11:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now that we have a summary, can we delete Cochrane? TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cochrane is one of the best reviews. It seems logical to give it special attention, though we don't need to name it. We can balance it with an equal-sized mention of the best review that highlights the benefits.   Will Beback    talk    11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be more of a summary, per WP:LEAD. For example, it could give a brief overview of the various areas in which research has been done, some of the journals that have published the studies, the funding, etc. That could easily be done in a sentence or two. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could post a version here Timid for discussion? --BwB (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body. . . ." I think highlighting specific details and specific reviews violates this guideline. Will draft a sentence below. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft sentences
Numerous scientific studies have appeared in peer-reviewed journals examining the effects of TM. However, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation, said that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.
 * Existing text:

"Numerous scientific studies have appeared in peer-reviewed journals examining the effects of TM on aspects of mind, body, and health, including metabolism, biochemistry, bran waves, cognitive function, anxiety, stress, blood pressure, atherosclerosis, and mortality. The results are suggestive, but from the view of evidence-based medicine firm conclusions can't be drawn until more research is done, though two reviews did conclude that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount."
 * Proposed text:

Seems like that about covers it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks TG. Does this really summarize the state of research on the entire body of peer reviewed TM research as described in the secondary sources such as reviews? I feel you've summarized what is in the lead now but not the research in general or what is in the article As well, do we need to make a point of just the medicine based medicine research or research that is only heath related per MEDRS or is there other research? Thanks for your efforts and for considering these issues.(olive (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
 * I selected those areas based on the Research section in the article. It doesn't describe the entire range of research, because we haven't yet included some areas in this article. What specifically is mentioned in the article that's not in this general list? TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To TG: Per WP:Lead, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the '''subject of the article."


 * This: "However, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation, said that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality.[17] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[18] TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.[19]" seems to be only one side of the views on the research. Surely 350 peer reviewed studies, and 28 million in NIH grants indicates another, and a possible positive view, from some perspectives. The lead, per NPOV should present a neutral view which now it doesn't seem to. (olive (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC))


 * This line is ungrammatical and clumsy. I've added what seems to have been a missing comma, but it still seems argumentative.
 * The results are suggestive, but from the view of evidence-based medicine, firm conclusions can't be drawn until more research is done, though two reviews did conclude that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.
 * What view besides "evidence-based medicine" are we concerned with when it comes to medical studies? WP:MEDRS seems to say that we should only be discussing reviews, not the primary sourced studies. If there are other reviews than Cochrane then let's provide their views as well. It's just going to confuse readers to say that studies have investigated X, Y, and Z, and then tell them that the findings aren't meaningful. Let's just tell them about what is meaningful.   Will Beback    talk    23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will perhaps you could explain what you think should be in the lead in terms of the research on the TM technique and per WP: LEAD and NPOV. None of us seem to agree. Can we establish a guide we all agree on for what should be there... in general terms... then perhaps draft the content based on that.(olive (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
 * What should be in the article on research into the health effects of TM?
 * WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for [the medical and health-related aspects] aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. "
 * If we want to use ideal sources, then we should stick with what the reviews say, along with anything we can find in standard textbooks and similar sources. Do we want to use the best available sources?   Will Beback    talk    01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, the perspective of evidence-based medicine represents only a tiny fraction of the reviews. My version of the lead allows for the perspective of the other reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS is directly opposed to this transparent POV-pushing. Science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is regarded as "neutral" for all such purposes in Wikipedia. It is fundamentally untenable to assert here that "evidence based medicine" is simply a POV to be treated as if it is equivalent to whatever it is "non-evidence based, non-medicine" may be. Okrent's Law applies here. These are not viewpoints entitled to equvalent weight in a Wikiedia article. "Evidence-based medicine" is orthodoxy, it is the "truth" and the "mainstream" insofar as this encylopedia is concerned, like it or not. The meta-analyses, which are the highest and best sources on this research say, to put it in lay terms, "90% of this reserarch is fetid, stinking crap, and the rest of it, viewed in the most favorable light possible, is inconclusive at best" To assert otherwise is a fundamental disservice to readers and to the core principles of Wikipedia. This is utterly non-negotiable principle, and the mere argument strikes me as a fundamental violation of the ArbCom decision.  Fladrif (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A fundamental issue here is that all of the research is not health related. This is a discussion on how to summarize all of the research not just that which may fall under WP:MEDRS. I'm afraid much of what you are saying above is your opinion. We need to get past opinion and discuss the research and how to summarize it in the best way possible per WP:Lead.(olive (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

To the contrary, I do not have an opinion about the research. I do not pretend to have the qualifications to have an opinion on the research. My comments are based entirely upon (i) the very clear policies of Wikipedia not only on medical research but on scientific inquiry in general and (ii) the conclusions of the sources which, according to Wikipedia, we, as editors, are supposed to rely upon and to afford the highest weight. Per those policies and sources, it is a complete non-starter to assert that "evicence based medicine" is just a POV that is entitled to the same weight as things that mainstream science dismiss as pseudoscience. Fladrif (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are more issues here than whether the research is all pseudoscience as you are labeling it. If we have secondary sources that cite the research we use that, and we can summarize those sources in the lead . If we have compliant sources for research that is not medicine/health related we can cite that. Its not a simple, its all pseudoscience. I doubt that Harvard and Yale would consider their research efforts in this area as pseudoscience.(olive (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC))


 * That Harvard and Yale bit is of course my opinion :o)(olive (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Just a point of agreement with Olive - the research is not all concerned with health effects - in fact "physical effects" may be a better heading. Also, we cover, at least briefly, the sociological Maharishi Effect which as been researched too.   Will Beback    talk    10:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, could you please respond to my most recent point above. My basic point is that we represent about a dozen secondary sources in the research section. The summary in the lead should account for more than just two of them. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The language under consideration is entirely concerned with health effects. Which part of "mind, body, and health, including metabolism, biochemistry, bran waves, cognitive function, anxiety, stress, blood pressure, atherosclerosis, and mortality." is not a health effect? All of it is, and thus all of it is subject to WP:MEDRS Where is the bright line that distinquishes "physical effects" from "health effects"? There is no distinction! Fladrif (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We are attempting to summarize per WP:LEAD, the overall state of research on the TM technique which includes but is not limited to those studies per WP:MEDRS that may be considered "Evidence-based medicine (EBM)" which " aims to apply the best available evidence gained from the scientific method to medical decision making. It seeks to assess the strength of evidence of the risks and benefits of treatments (including lack of treatment) and diagnostic tests." (per our Wikipedia article linked from WP:MEDRS). (olive (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

"As taught to children"?
I don't think it's accurate to add "As taught to children" to characterize the two SCI principles. These aren't some sort of children's version, as the edit suggests, nor does the source say that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the news article that is used for this sentence. I have to agree with Timid that the article does not talk about a "children's version" of SCI, but presents some principles that are taught to children at the school.  Therefore, I think the current sentence is a slight misrepresentation of source. Perhaps we could say "Children at a Maharishi School in the UK are taught Science of Creative Intelligence principles such as "the nature of life is to grow" and "order is present everywhere." and use the same source? --BwB (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At the Maharishi School, [Derek Cassells, headteacher at the Maharishi School in Lancashire] teaches the principles of the "science of creative intelligence" alongside the practical aspects of meditation. These principles, "such as 'the nature of life is to grow' and 'order is present everywhere', allow children to see beneath the surface of life, so that they apply the principles outside them and within their own lives". 
 * That isn't an article about SCI, which it just mentions almost in passing. If we want to add some principles of SCI there are scholarly books we can use that are far better sources. I think we should remove the entire sentence. However while it's there we should give the context. Both "children" and "Maharishi School" are included in the short reference.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you find my proposed sentence acceptable? "Children at a Maharishi School in the UK are taught Science of Creative Intelligence principles such as "the nature of life is to grow" and "order is present everywhere." --BwB (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to use that source to say that students at the Maharishi School are taught SCI. But when it comes to summarizing the main points of SCI itself, I think we should use one of the many scholarly sources we have. We should always try to use the best available sources.   Will Beback    talk    09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a common lesson at Maharishi schools.  Will Beback   talk    10:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this unit is to give students an understanding of what Iowa life was like in the 1800’s. This will be accomplished by studying basic domestic activities along with modes of transportation. Because these issues are relevant to the students’ lives, they will be able to easily compare their lives with the lives of Iowans in the past. In that way, they will develop a deep connection with and understanding for Iowa history. By studying the progression of life in Iowa's history, the students will understand Maharishi's principle of the Science of Creative Intelligence, "The Nature of Life is to Grow." 
 * "19th Century Iowans: Moving and Progressing Through Time and Space. The Nature of Life is to Grow and Progress" Curriculum Sample (Unit Plan/Lesson Plans/Webquest/Student Work) Iowa History Unit Plan


 * Note that we already say SCI is taught in schools:
 * SCI is also on the curriculum of lower schools including the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment in Iowa, Wheaton, Maryland,[71] and Skelmersdale, UK.[72]
 * I don't see the point is saying so twice. I suggest we move The Independent citation to this sentence and find a better source for anything more we want to say about SCI's maxims.    Will Beback    talk    10:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the objection, especially since you've been arguing for the use of newspapers in relationship to the research. I can see where it would matter in the area of science, because newspapers often distort it or get it wrong, as MEDRS says. I agree that we should always try to use the best sources, but a simple fact like this, an example of two of the most basic principles of SCI, hardly seems debatable. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to whom are these the most basic principles of SCI? Is there a book that says so? If there is then let's use it. Is this off-hand remark really the best source we have for this concept? That seems odd, considering how central SCI is to TM.   Will Beback    talk    11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I found these on a self-published website: Are these the "most basic principles of SCI"? Surely they appear in a reliable source somewhere.  Will Beback   talk    21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The nature of life is to grow.
 * 2) Order is present everywhere.
 * 3) Life is found in layers.
 * 4) Outer depends on inner.
 * 5) Water the root to enjoy the fruit.
 * 6) Rest and Activity are the steps of progress.
 * 7) Enjoy and accomplish more.
 * 8) Every action has a reaction.
 * 9) Purification leads to progress.
 * 10) The field of all possibilities is the source of all solutions.
 * 11) Thought leads to action. Action leads to achievement. Achievement leads to fulfillment.
 * 12) Knowledge is gained from inside and outside.
 * 13) The world is as we are.
 * 14) Opposites are found together.
 * 15) The whole is found in every part.
 * 16) The whole is more than the sum of the parts.


 * So there isn't any book or first-class source for the actual principles of SCI?   Will Beback    talk    06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)