Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 7

C7jgd93

Comments from a TM practitioner
I've practiced TM twice a day for the last 12 years and there's no question that it's valuable and beneficial in many ways; I've also studied Indian philosophy in depth and visited India twice. By any estimate Maharishi's scholarship is superb and his commentaries, insights and translations from Sanskrit very impressive indeed.

However Maharishi and TM are just examples among many gurus and techniques exported from India and certainly the movement doesn't have exclusive claim to spiritual truth and personal development. Many thinkers and Indian philosophers accept the basic authority of the Vedas, among the most profound writings in humanity's possession, and then argue over details and interpretations. This is the sensible way to look at TM- a useful addition to the world's great spiritual backcloth that is the Indian tradition.
 * Oh, in that case I agree we should entirely remove anything negative from the TM article, since an anonymous person says there's "no question" that TM is valuable and beneficial in many ways and that "by any estimate," Mahesh Yogi's scholarship is superb, and obviously beyond question or criticism.
 * Anonymous writer, Wiki talk pages are NOT public bulletin boards for people to talk about their views of the world. They are places for EDITORS to discuss how to better edit the article. You'd be much better off discussing your life and your views on alt.meditation.transcendental. Thanks for understanding. Askolnick 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

lkcl 22sep2006 Askolnick, what i think this anonymous person is trying to say is to point out that the 'editors' are getting a little over-excited, and making quite a mess of the page by not having a broad enough perspective, and that person is pointing out that TM is only one part of a much wider picture, which they have kindly pointed out. one of the editors is known to have been sued (and the lawsuit was unsuccessful) by deepak chopra (when he was still involved in TM) and two other tm organisations. one of the 'pro-tm' people is getting so overexcited that they're throwing out baby and bathwater, and got banned from ever editing wikipedia pages ever again.

this is a difficult subject to cover, not because it's actually difficult to follow and to understand, but because the current world climate is so materialistic and so dark. consequently, TM clashes _really_ badly with the 'Way Things Are'. and the 'Way Things Are' are leading to the destruction of life on this planet. perhaps that's an exaggeration, but the 'Way Things Are' can quite obviously and self-evidently seen to be pretty xxxxing bad: you only have to watch 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to get an inkling of how bad things really are.

so, it's not entirely surprising to find that the article is a pretty good micro-cosmic reflection of the resistance to the effects of TM and its practitioners are having on the world at large. if you believe that there are any effects at all, of course :) see the section 'hmm' below for a good example of what i mean.

hmm
As a newcomer to this article, I am amazed it has been allowed to get to this state: Surely the fact that the claims on the founders website quickly prove to be lies (I particularly loved the graphs of various cognative performance improvments which were basically meaningless, and the claim of 100s of scientific studies which, if properly examined, quickly dissappear!), is enough that wikipedia should dismiss the whole concept as "Scientology for gullible meditation-addicts". 128.86.161.242 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased
Simply the article can be termed as ATM antiTranscendental meditation.

For sure every thing has its own side effects .There will be a 10% ill effect in all stuffs existing in the world.I hope this article primarily focusses on the controversies ...i know more people who say they r benifited. We have to remeber that even jesus was crucified in this world.So obviously set of people will be always cristising their extent trying to critisise things.

But it is a shame that wikipedia hosts such writings.For sure the article has to be rewriten to capture best and ill of TM asap.

Mantras will they affect human nature
What i heard from other TM practioners that the mantra used in TM are basic mantras used in ancient vedic books.I dont think repetition of mantra is going to hamper anyones mental health. The thing for sure is that u must not compell and do meditation like a exercise .It will come naturally.It is a mental state without much tensions.Even we sit idle for quite some time we feel pleasantness Repetition of Mantra makes u stay focussed without any much efforts.

As per my opinion TM Meditation practice is simple and i have found lot of people benifited from it.Even i felt bit enregised for around 14 hours in my programming proffession.

Really iam not a supported of TM group but i wish to convey my words and experiences about TM. I have also experienced that iam bit focussed while playing cricket after practising TM.This is true. even iam not a regular practioned of TM.

Some of the rules of meditation 1.Deep sleep and enough sleep is a must and it is better than mediattion. 2.Dont compell urself to sit at Meditation.It will occur naturally like sometimes u may think of  going for a long pleasant walk. 3.Primary things--> rest for 5 mins before and after medittaion 4.Dont do meditation when stomach is loaded or after exercise.

Really meditation has lot of good effects if practised properly.There are lot of ways of meditation. I practised two and found myself comfortable with TM.


 * Hi, 213.42.2.XX. It would be great if you'd create an account and sign your posts, because you keep coming in from different IPs and it's hard to know who's talking. Please note that you can sign posts on this page, even without having an account, by typing four tildes like this: ~ . When you save, that transforms to your IP, or your account name if you have one, plus a timestamp. But the main thing I wanted to tell you is that this is a page for discussing the article — not the subject transcendental meditation, your experiences of it, etc. It's only for discussing, and hopefully reaching some agreement on, how to make Transcendental Meditation better. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Ditto. Also, when you edit the TM or any other Wiki article, please be more careful and always check the accuracy of what you add. The Archives of Internal Medicine (a montly specialty journal) is not the prestigious weekly Journal of the American Medical Association. And please try to make all changes consistent with Wiki style (including all footnotes, references, etc). Please see how I edited your additions. Thanks.Askolnick 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, this IP address has been used repeatedly to vandalize Wiki articles and it has been blocked several times -- the most recent was just 3 days ago. Any idea what's going on with this IP address? Askolnick 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a shared proxy. Predictably, it's got a mix of good and bad edits, and apparently when you block it, you take out the entire United Arab Emirates. See in the block log how Nandesuka blocks it for a month in April, then unblocks four days later when he realizes the collateral damage is unacceptable? The person who used it to post here doesn't sound like a vandal to me. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC).


 * With all their wealth from oil, I would think they could afford more than one IP address!Askolnick 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Newsgroups as primary sources
While I agree that citing a newsgroup for Denaro's quote wasn't the best thing (I couldn't find the original online ANYWHERE, so I used the newsgroup reference "just because"), newsgroups CAN be a primary source of info. For instance, the first publication concerning Duff's Device was made by Mr. Duff in a newsgroup exchange. Additionally, the first public analysis that correctly identified the source of the Pentium Bug that I'm aware of was made in a newsgroup discussion. The guy was immediately hired by Intel to head up the team to identify and fix it. Sparaig 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Sparaig, "newsgroups CAN (NOT) be a primary source of info" for Wiki articles. I wish you would pay attention to Wiki rules and guidelines before claiming what is or is not allowed. The fact that you were unable to find that information elsewhere is not relevant. Wiki's Reliable sources guidelines say posts to Usenet (newsgroups) should not be used as sources because there is no editorial oversight or third party fact-checking and that there is no way to know for sure who has written those posts.


 * "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." Askolnick 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, Duff's Device was first announced in a newsgroup and that IS the primary source. All other references (including textbook and Wikipedia itself) to Duff's Device go back to this newsgroup posting by Tom Duff. Wikipedias's guidelines obviously must make an exception in this case unless the Wiki editorial community wants to insist that a secondary source citing Duff is more important than Duff's original newsgroup article. Sparaig 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparaig, I think you want the WP:RS talk page for this. This is a page for discussing how to edit the TM article, not for changing Wiki guidelines. This is the tail. You need to take your opinion of what Wiki guidelines "must do" to the dog. It's the dog that wags the tail. Convince the dog and then come back here to rewrite the tail.
 * Furthermore, it is not compelling evidence to point to exceptions in articles. Even a casual survey of Wiki articles will show that many editors simply ignore guidelines that get in their way, as you're arguing to do here. It's the job of other editors to keep Wiki articles free of unreputable sources. Askolnick 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research question
Currently, as a volunteer (to get hopefully professional-level experience), I'm doing some 3D animation work for TM researcher Fred Travis, based on the theory of how TM works first proposed in. All I'm doing is creating a 3D illustration of the theory. Is this "original research" or does it fall under the illustration guidelines? Sparaig 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparaig, I think you still don't understand what is meant by "original research" in Wikipedialand. Wiki's rule prohibits editors from adding any of their own opinions or information that is NOT supported by a credible published source. If your "3D animation work" is "published" by a reputable "publisher," then that information might be permitted. If not, forget about it.Askolnick 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I was asking for clarification. My 3D work is illustrating an already-published theoretical paper. I assume that animation falls under the Original images clause of the no original research guideline. Since you didn't make reference to this in your response, I don't think the matter is closed. Sparaig 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what that Wiki guideline says:


 * "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."


 * To put it another way, an illustration that helps to explain generally accepted information is permitted. However, an illustration that presents an editor's point of view about a controversial issue is not. So if you would want to add a picture of Maharishi that's not controversial, there would be no problem. But if you wanted to add a picture showing him with a halo of light around his head or floating in mid-air, forget it.


 * Without seeing your images, I won't venture a guess whether they're acceptable or not. However, seeing that you're illustrating someone else's theory about how TM "works," you could indeed be trying to include pictures of "hydrogen atoms showing extra particles in the nucelus." If so, such illustrations of "Transmutation meditation" are not likely to lift off the ground here, let alone hover.


 * A while back, I added a photograph of my dog Argos (who, BTW, is still waiting for Peterklutz at our back door :-) to the Wiki article on Labrador Retrievers -- which was entirely appropriate because it helps to illustrate generally accepted information (that the color of yellow Labs also include "fox reds." That's not just my opinion or interpretation. That is information which was contributed by other editors and that is well-documented. I only provided an illustration to help readers visualize the appearance of a fox red yellow Lab. However, it would not be proper for me to add my unpublished illustration of what I think the Loch Ness monster looks like. If I had to guess, I'd guess that's figuratively what you would like to do. Correct me if I'm wrong.Askolnick 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're wrong, but not certain. Fred Travis asked me to create an animation illustrating a theory of how TM works that he and Keith Wallace published in Consciousness and Cognition, a reasonably respected mainstream journal, at least according to the Wikipedia entry. Obviously, its not a widely accepted theory in mainstream science, but given that the theory IS published in a well-known journal, how is  an animated illustration of the theory a violation? The theory is based on the observation of fMRIs of meditators that shows that their thalamic activity reduces during TM even though the meditator is still alert according to other measures. All the animation is supposed to do is show the observed situation, followed by an illustration of the proposed mechanism for how this happens during TM and why it may be important. Fred will be using the animation in presentations and lectures. I just thought it would be fun to post a reference to it in the TM wiki article. Sparaig 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have not seen the illustrations you want to add to this article. So the question remains, are they your representation of what a "dog" looks like or what a "Loch Ness monster" looks like? Because your work is unpublished, it should not be used if it is your interpretation of something that many authorities don't believe is true. Why don't you provide us with a URL so that we can see those images and judge whether you've "added particles to the hydrogen nucleus" (as Wiki cites as an unacceptable example). Askolnick 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, for all *I* know, it IS a case of adding particles to the hydrogen nucleus. However, *I* am not the one adding the particles. The proposal to add the particles is found in a theoretical paper published in a mainstream journal. All I'm doing is illustrating what the authors claim the particles look like at the request of one of the authors. Sparaig 07:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparaig, you just don't get it. No original research means no original research. Your adding unpublished information that you say was created "at the request of one of the authors," is doing original research. Wiki readers should NOT have to take your word for it that you got things right, that you didn't add a few "extra particles to the atom's nucleus" because you believe they belong there. Should I be allowed to add unpublished information that I've assembled into this article? Of course not. Wiki's rules barring original research forbids it. Should another editor be allowed to add unpublished information that I've assembled and want him to add? No, that's also not allowed. If Travis thinks your illustration adds to his work, get him to publish it in a reputable source. Then you may include it in a Wiki article. Askolnick 11:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, the Wiki guidelines for illustrations don't require that the illustration be previously published. Fred's asked me to animate the activity of the brain ala his proposed theory that's already been published. Your interpretation of things would require that no illustration could be created unless it were of something already observed, rather than theorized. That would forbid anyone adding illustrations or animations of Einstein's thought experiments concerning Relativity to a Wikipedia article, as a for example. No pictures of twins, etc. Sparaig 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The Wiki "no original research" guidelines we're talking about concern NON-published illustrations. But those guidelines say that such illustrations should not contain information that is dubious (such as including extra particles in the nucleus of an atom). It doesn't matter if the editor was told by a "researcher" to add those extra particles. Adding such illustrations is not allowed under Wiki's No Original Research rule.


 * By your interpretation, an editor can sneak around the No Original Research rule by drawing instead of writing the information he wants to add - thus avoiding the Wiki requirement that all information be backed by a reputable source. It's not enough to claim that Travis thinks your illustrations accurately portray his theory. According to Wiki policies, an editor's word is NOT enough. It must be backed up by a credible source. And no, what I'm saying doesn't forbid anyone from adding illustrations of any of Einstein's thought experiments. Such illustrations may be added if they've been published in a reputable source, or if they have not been published, that they do not provide dubious or non-verifiable information. For example, throwing a few tachyons into an illustration of an Einstein thought experiment would be an obvious no-no. Without seeing the illustrations you've created, I don't know if they do that. But considering everything you've said, I suspect it may. If the information is not dubious or controversal, why not simply add it and let Wiki editors decide? Askolnick 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They (we) will decide anyway. I'm still working on the stuff. Never claimed to be a professional animator, which is why I do volunteer stuff --to get experience so I can learn to do it fast enough to charge money. Sparaig 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks andrew
I'm sure the rest of the wiki community appreciates your tireless efforts to discredit the postings of Peter. I mean, they can't possibly figure where he's coming from on their own... Sparaig 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand why you don't want newcomers to know that TMer Peterklutz was permanently blocked from contributing to Wikipedia because of his persistent disruptive conduct (in fact, he continues to waste the time of two administrators, who have to keep reverting his attacks). However, newcomers need some help navigating through this mind-bogglingly long talk page. You obviously resent my giving them this help. You should bear in mind that I wouldn't need to inform newcomers that TMer Peterklutz is blocked for persistently disruptive conduct if he had not been persistently disruptive. As I told TM monk and publicist Dean Drazin 15 years ago, I'm only the postman delivering people's kharma. Askolnick 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that anyone but you cares at this point? His contributions are all on the TALK page now, where they will pass into archived form quite shortly. Sparaig 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you care enough, or else you wouldn't have added a new subsection to this talk page to comment on this. Askolnick 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sparaig. You're incorrect that Peter's contributions are all on his, or any, talkpage. He's posted several times to Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi today, from, and edit warred to keep in a contribution of such barefaced POV (plus incidentally what looks like deliberately bad grammar changes) that he has to be aware that it'll never be kept in the article. I don't see any possible purpose other than to make work for admins, or to discredit TM. Or both. And he went right on after I held off blocking today in order to tell him he was only embarrassing his own side. Looks to me like Askolnick is the wrong person to blame for Peter making TMers look bad. Compare my note here. Are you sure he is a bona fide TMer?  Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC).


 * I was referring to the "note to newbies" stuff that andrew put on THIS page to comment about Peter's comments on THIS page. He's removed them since. And Andrew, I was just being sarcastic. Peter obviously has problems that he deals with by making TM and MMY his religion in the strictest sense of the word. I think most people can figure that out without your commentary on his problems. Sparaig 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes? I was referring to your mistaken claim that Peter's edits were now all on a [whichever] talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Archiving
All right, I think archiving round about now might be a good idea. I'm archiving all threads more than three days old in the usual way, same as archives 1-3, shutting my eyes firmly to the novelty of creating archive 4 and 5 by pointing to particular history revisions. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Footnote section problem
Bishonen or anyone else who can figure out what's wrong, please take a look at the footnote section of the TM article. I tried to fix the last footnote in the list, but in the editing mode, none of the footnotes are displayed. Askolnick 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that what you had in mind for the footnote? Dreadlocke 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

double-citing?
It seems a tad biased to cite the same court ruling in 2 sections: learning TM and TM controversy. Sparaig 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In a lengthy article, about an organization with a thousand tm-entacles throughout the world, some repetition of information is obviously necessary - and citing sources is a Wiki necessity!

OK, let me contrive ways to include the phrase "founder of the award winning K-12 school in Iowa" in several places... Sparaig 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's contrived, that would be spamming and will probably be removed.Askolnick 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

clarification
just clarified a few matters... Sparaig 22:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you? Do you really think it is truthful to say the TM initiates only witness and do not particpate in their initiation ceremony? You know TM inititiates are required to particpate in the Hindu religious ceremony called a puja. They are REQUIRED to enter bearing fruit, flowers, and a clean handkerchief, to be handed as an offering to the teacher, who places them on the makeshift altar to the "divine" Guru Dev. They are invited to kneel before this "deity." At the end of the ceremony, they are directed to join the teacher in the chanting of the initiate's mantra - a short word associated with a Hindu deity.


 * Everything you say is true. However, according to MMY, the most important part of the participation IS witnessing the cerermony. It's allegorical for the disinterested witnessing of someone who is enlightened. In the Hindu religion, the priest always performs the ceremony while the others watch, for the same reason: it's allegory. Even in the largest-scale Hindu literature, you find this theme repeated: In the Bhagavad Gita, Prince Krishna, who is God Incarnate for Hindus, drives the chariot for the hero Arjuna, who does nothing in the entire story save ask a few questions.  BTW, "deity" is a slippry term here. "Deva" doesn't translate well into English as the Wikipedia entry shows. Sparaig 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a curious reference in the anonymously-contributed "Steps of Initiation" on the minet.org site, which is a rather detailed step-by-step narration of how the initiation ceremony is supposed to be conducted, my emphasis added:


 * "Teacher offers one of student's flowers back to student. The student must take and hold it for the ceremony to continue."


 * This sounds to me like the performance of the ritual is contingent upon that wall between simply watching and participating being deliberately broken; all such processes designed to wear down objections always start with very, very small requests like this one, to simply hold a flower. Mike Doughney 09:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mike, it is beyond question that without the initiate participating in the TM initiation puja, the religious ceremony would never take place. If the initiate doesn't participate, there is no ceremony. If he/she doesn't bring flowers, fruit, and a clean handkerchief for Guru Dev to blow his divine nose, the ceremony wouldn't continue. If he doesn't hand those gifts over to the teacher to be placed on the altar, the ceremony would not go forward. As you note, the ceremony won't continue unless the initiate takes a flower back from the teacher. And if the initiate doesn't begin chanting his mantra, the ceremony is all for naught. To claim that inititates don't participate in the TM initiation ceremony clearly is dissembling.Askolnick 14:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who bothers to check that citation[ will see the comment that "deity" is a slippery term here" is spin. The article defines "deva" as "divine manifestations" and talks of deva as "gods," "goddesses," and other "divine manifestations" of forces of nature or moral principles. While obviously more complex than the monotheistic beliefs of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Hinduism - including the TM variety - involves belief in supernatural beings, including deities and demons. Using the complexity of these beliefs to hint otherwise is spinning. So is claiming that someone is not a participant who also watches. The argument that TM initiates aren't participating in the ceremony because they also witness what the teacher does is like saying only the priest participates in a Roman Catholic mass. All the bible page turning, hymn singing, money donating, amening, and "eating" of "Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" is NOT participating in that religious ceremony. In other words Sparaig, you appear to be arguing that watching the TM teacher perform the religious ceremony "transmutates" the initiate from a participant into just a witness. Now that's what I call a miracle - the miracle of transcendental spinning. Can I have a Jai Guru Dev?. [[User:Askolnick|Askolnick]] 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The student brings the flowers and whatnot and gives them to the teacher, who then uses them. If this is "participation" in your book, then fine. Not everyone feels that way. The *presence* of teh student is required. My recollection is tht even if the student fails to bring flowers and whatnot, at least some teaachers have been willing to provide their own to complete the ceremony, though its been 30 years since I started so I certainly can be wrong there.


 * BTW,, the typical daily Yogic Flying figure in MUM is said to be more like 500-600 morning and evening. The "nearly 2000" figure apparently refers to the people who have learned the Sidhis who live in Fairfield. It may or may not include a large number who have turned to other gurus over the years and ar no longer allowed to participate in the group hopping thing. . Sparaig 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

interesting reference on history of Maharishi and TM organization
As an aside, Dr. Coplin says MMY was born in 1912, so now we have a THIRD date.

This is from this guy's PhD dissertation in Sociology.

Text and Context in the Communication of a Social Movement's Charisma, Ideology, and Consciousness:TM for India and the West

Introduction

SRM Origins

Socio-Historical Context for SRM's Emergence

SRM's Emergence

Notes for Chapter 2

SRM as Cultural Revitalization

Sparaig 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing Maharishi's biography
An anonymous user has tried to sanitize this article by removing all material concerning allegations of Maharishi's sexual misconduct, which was well-documented. I therefore replaced it. (He/she had even removed the part about the most famous of all of Maharishi's past and present followers - the Beatles!). For the record, here is the rule he/she claimed justified his/her deletion:


 * "Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

Because the information he/she removed was well-sourced, that deletion was improper and needed to be restored.Askolnick 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz range-blocked
Crossposting. Sorry guys, I wasn't watching very closely. I have now blocked Peterklutz's entire IP range for a month to give you a bit of peace. I'm hoping it won't cause a lot of collateral damage to innocent anons. And if he starts riding the open proxies again, I suppose I'll semiprotect Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Transcendental meditation if you give me a shout. Mind you, MMY is such a mess anyway... anybody feel like cleaning it up a bit? Bishonen | talk 02:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Poor sourcing: I may remove these claims
The Maharishi University of Management which is invoked as a source for the early 1970s research at UCLA and Harvard in the section "Procedures and Theory" is a really bad source in such a context. (By contrast, it might well be a good source for, say, TM teachings and doctrine.) If you click on the link to the MUM website, it turns out to refer in turn, vaguely, to publication "from 1970 to 1972 in the respected journals Science, American Journal of Physiology, and Scientific American." Bah. What we need for the TM article are direct references to those published studies in those (indeed) respected journals. If those references exist somewhere on the MUM site, I haven't found them. I request that somebody takes the time to look up the 1970 to 1972 issues of the original journals and produces real references. The dream would be web versions of the articles in question, of course. If this is not done within a reasonable space of time, say four weeks from today, I'm going to remove the whole thing as unsourced. Talking about Harvard and Scientific American, while actually only having access to MUM's selected and rephrased version of what's in them just doesn't fly. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=pubmed

keyword: wallace RK

22: Wallace RK, Benson H, Wilson AF. Related Articles, Links A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. Am J Physiol. 1971 Sep;221(3):795-9. No abstract available. PMID: 5570336 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 23: Wallace RK. Related Articles, Links [Physiological effects of transcendental meditation] Rev Bras Med. 1970 Aug;27(8):397-401. Portuguese. No abstract available. PMID: 5487313 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 24: Wallace RK. Related Articles, Links Physiological effects of transcendental meditation. Science. 1970 Mar 27;167(926):1751-4. No abstract available. PMID: 5416544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Sheesh. Earliest published research, all the ducks right in a row. That you don't trust MUM to get the references by their founding president right speaks volumes about you...Sparaig 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, for some reason, the 1972 Scientific American study doesn't show up in medline, but Herbert Benson has photos of it as well as the charts taken from it on his website Relaxation Response homepage:

Sparaig 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think our readers are supposed to take such things on trust, I don't know what to tell you. It's nice that you were able to locate that information easily when challenged; I'm a bit surprised you didn't try before. Why put it on the talkpage, though? yourself. And please review WP:CIVIL and take a shot at using some other tone than a sneer. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * You're right, sorry. And I didn't notice the non-citation, so I never put it in. If you haven't, I will. Sparaig 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjunctive - neutral expressions
I am just trying to understand Bishonen's earlier reverts about my heading changes. In fact I had applied what any German (I am german) Journalist would do, not being aware of the use of subjunctive in English. You might want to read this :'By using the special subjunctive, the newspaper is asserting its own neutrality concerning the claim's veracity. English does not provide so elegant a means. "He said that he was an honest person" - as opposed to "He said that he is an honest person" - is a kind of modified subjunctive that provides some distance, but it cannot be sustained over longer passages as easily as German's special subjunctive. Instead, English must rely on words like "allegedly" and frequent repetitions of "he said...."' I am glad you left my second suggestion, even though I don't think its optimal..But let me just make a few points: That something is said to be claim, doesn't mean that one has to leave a 'neutral voice', the claim can be cited in a self-distancing voice and should be so in WP for NPOV. According to the article the english subjunctive would be something like this: 'He said that he was an honest person' In our case the headings would be: etc. instead of etc. As I am no native English speaker, its hard for me to decide which one is more neutral. I would also be interested in the opinion of Spairag
 * 1) "The TM movement was a religion"
 * 2) "The TM movement was a cult"
 * 1) "The TM movement being a religion"
 * 2) "The TM movement being a cult"
 * I did understand what you were trying to do; "would" would work nicely in my mother tongue too. I reverted the headings because English doesn't have that feature, as you say, and thus your version didn't make sense to an anglophone. IMO "being" has a fair chance of being understood (though it doesn't sound any too idiomatic), while "was" has no chance at all, it just sounds strange. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Okay, fair enough. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "He said that he was an honest person," implies that the person was honest in the past, but may have stopped being honest. If you want to convey that the person claims he was and continues to be honest, then you need to say, "He said that he is was and is an honest person." If you mean he's honest now, without commenting about the past, then you'd say, "He said that he is an honest person."


 * Verbs in English don't quite behave the way they do in German. Verstehen?


 * Saying "The TM movement was a religion," means that it was a religion and implies that it is no longer a religion.


 * Saying "The TM movement being a religion," is not grammatical; it's actually an incomplete sentence. "Being a religion" stands as a explanatory clause in this sentence; it is not the verb and predicate.


 * Two verbs which are identical in writing do not have to be the same case. In this sense there seems to be a limited subjunctive case in english, which is different from past sense - and still are identical. If you say: 'he was and is an honest person' was is past sense, what is not implied here. Its not my language, but one word can, according to context, mean different things.Or, do you mean to say there is no subjunctive in english language? 'The TM movement being a religion' is not a complete sentence, but then its a heading, as such it doesn't have to be a complete sentence; as it is, it is the only compromise we have for the moment. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Yes, there is a subjunctive mood in English. But English is moving away from its use, as the Wiki article states . The point I was trying to make is that just the words, "The TM movement being a religion," makes no clear sense in English. Those words need additional words to make sense - for example: "The TM movement, being a religion, may not be taught in public schools in the United States." But just the words, "The TM movement being a religion," makes no clear sense. I'm not sure what you want to say with those words so I can't even suggest a fix.
 * As for what TM's critics say, they say TM is a religion. TMers vehemently deny this, but that's what the movement's critics say (and U.S. Federal Courts basically agree with the critics: the courts declared that TM is too relgious to be taught in public schools). So I think the proper heading for this section should reflect what the critics allege: TM is a religion.Askolnick 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad you don't understand, I thought I was clear. I certainly disagree with you that WP should reflect the critics opinion without a distance. If the phrase is not a complete sentence, it can be extended,for example: 'The question of the TM movement being a religion' instead of WP owning the position of the critics in its phraseology. That would be a more neutral way of expression, consistent with NPOV. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Hanumandas, you were not clear. "The TM movement being a religion," makes no sense at all. That combination of words has no meaning. And I stand by our duty to accurately reflect the view points of TM critics, as well as defenders, and not to sanitize them or make them more neutral sounding.


 * I didn't write those headlines and I have any need to defend them. But I am opposed to replacing them with unintelligible words, such as "The TM movement being a religion." If you can come up with a better replacement, I'd be all for it. In my opinion, placing quotation marks around each of the headings would make it clearer that those are the critic's opinions, not Wiki's.Askolnick 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, quotation marks are surely one means, which we already applied. IMO headings don't require to be phrases or sentences, simply a word like 'Religion' or 'Religous Nature' would be sufficient to indicate the topic. Then in the text underneath, which is not in bold, the postion of critics can be stated, while the sentence will contain that this is the belief of critics. In this context its okay of course. Just like it was before, the context, that these are claims of critics, which was written in not-bold, and underneath in bold the actual claims with lots of text inbetween the context sort of got lost. The heading (its actually a list element) Religion, which is in bold does not have to be in Quotation marks, but the word "Cult" should be, as it is usually regarded as an emotionally negative word.What do you think?-- hanuman &#2384;^ 11:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, use of the quotation marks solves the problem. It tells the reader that the quoted words are not (necessarily) the opinion of any Wiki editor, but are the opinions of critics, as the precedeing text clearly indicates. I believe good writing should be as clear and informative as possible. I think those list elements help the reader locate and identify the context of the text that follows -- much more so than saying "Religion" which could mean virtually anything. I think "Religious Nature" would be misleading, because critics say TM is a religion, not that it has a "religious nature."   If your problem with the the list element titles is that you don't want readers to think Wiki editors are saying those words, then I think the quotation marks solve the problem. I'd be happy to agree to better wording, but in my opinion, the wordings you've suggested so far are not better. Askolnick 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comentators on Malnak v Yogi have often pointed out that the door was left open to allow TM in public schools in a substantially different form than it was used in NJ. The fact that there are public charter schools in the US where kids practice TM during class hours under school supervision certainly suggests that this was a decent call. Americans United for Separation of Church and State was one of the plaintiffs in Malnak v Yogi, IIRC, and they apparently haven't called for a new day in court. Sparaig 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparig, this is spin based on the opinions of nameless, faceless "commentators." The opinion that matters here is the ruling of two federal courts that decided the TM initiation ceremony is a Hindu religious ceremony. Now if Maharishi would like to offer meditation instructions stripped of the initiation ceremony and other Hinduism-based content, then he would be allowed to teach TM in public schools. But he's not going to do that. His life-long plan is to see the entire world governed by his Hindu theocracy. The judge's ruling rested on three legs, and one of those legs was the observation that TM's mandatory initiation ceremony called a "puja," is by definition a religious Hindu ceremony. No amount of spin and obfuscation can change this. Askolnick 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "nameless, faceless comentators" are often the authors of articles in mainstream legal journals, and we already have evidence that there are ways of teaching TM in public schools that don't trigger lawsuits since entire public charter schools (at least one or two) have been setting aside time for TM practice at the start and end of the school day. Thus far, I haven't heard of any lawsuits coming to trial, and these school programs have been in existence for some time now. BTW, the TM puja was made up by MMY to honor his teacher. It is NOT a traditional Hindu ceremony, although it incorporates elements of various Hindu ceremonies. One could claim that it is a "TM religious ceremony" because one claims that TM is a religion, but logically speaking, regardless of what the courts said, its not proper to claim it to be "Hindu" in the religious sense. It didn't exist before MMY started teaching TM. Similar ceremonies are done for a variety of reasons in India by secular as well as religious Indians. That doesn't say that the courts were wrong (or right) to claim it religious, only that it is NOT part of any mainstream Hindu religious practice. It's a TM-specific ceremony. Double-BTW, even in the original Malnak v Yogi case, TM was taught OUTSIDE the physical school property (or such is my understanding), so that by itself wasn't an important issue. It was the combination of factors that lead to the decision. Any single factor, by itself, may or may not have led to the same decision, and as I said, there's evidence that the TMO has found a way around the decision since TM IS practiced in public school systems in this country using private funding, sans theoretical discussion and I haven't heard of any lawsuits. Sparaig 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fascinating how you respond to my argument that what you posted was spin based on anonymous, faceless commentators by offering only more spin based on anonymous, faceless commentators. Unless Maharishi is now teaching TM without his mandatory Hindu ceremony for all initiates, it continues to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution to teach TM in public schools. There has been NO change in the Federal Court rulings that teaching TM in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution - in large part because of TM's religious initiation ceremony. Frankly, I'm getting dizzy from all this spinning: That the mandatory initiation ceremony is "a TM-specific ceremony" which is "NOT part of any mainstream Hindu religious practice" is nothing but red herring spin apparently to confuse issues. The issue addressed by the courts was not how unique or how traditional TM religious practices are. The issue is that the TM iniatiation procedure is clearly a thinly disguised religious Hindu ceremony. Although told that TM is not religious, initiates are compelled to take part in the TM puja to offer gifts and thanks to Guru Dev and other Hindu deities. And that's only the start of the TM movement's deceptions. Until the TM movement goes to court and obtains a new opinion, the ruling in Malnak v Yogi stands: TM is too religious to be taught in public schools. And no amount of TM spinning is going to change that fact.Askolnick 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One man's spin is another man's attempt at clarification. BTW, I note that you don't adress my points but simply wavse your hands a lot as though this addresses them: TM *IS* being practiced under school supervision in at least one or more public charter schools and the people who brought lawsuits last time apparently haven't bothered to bring lawsuits this time, at least as yet. Double-BTW, the federal courts upheld a state court ruling. The specific case of Malnak v Yogi is NOT binding on the rest of the USA. There may have been other cases since then that I'm not familiar with. Sparaig 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparaig, if you don't bother to get your facts correct, please don't bother the rest of us with this constant drumming of false and misleading statements. Malnak v Yogi was decided in the 2nd District FEDERAL court in New Jersey - NOT a state court. A FEDERAL 3rd Circuit appeals court upheld the ruling in 1979. And you are wrong to suggest that those rulings are not binding in other jurisdictions. Unless and until a higher FEDERAL court (ie. the U.S. Supreme Court) reverses the ruling, Malnak v. Yogi has served and will continue to serve as legal precedence in other state and federal court cases. Unlike state court rulings, Federal court rulings carry weight in all state and federal courts throughout the country. Whether some schools are teaching TM is not evidence that teaching TM is public schools is constitutional. We all know that preaching the Godspell of Jesus Christ in public schools and public-funded military academies is unconstitutional. Yet it continues to be done. The fact that some people ignore the law is not evidence that their conduct is legal. The parties that sued Maharishi Mahesh Yogi were parents of New Jersey school children. You apparently don't know that a party cannot sue unless he or she has lawful standing before the court. So unless Malnak et al has children -- 30 years after Malnak v. Yogi -- and that those children are in the school districts that you claim are offering TM instructions, they would have absolutely no standing for filing a suit. Finally, I am not surprised that you don't know the difference between spin and clarification. You should look up the meaning of these terms before trying to clarify anything more for us. Askolnick 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The case was a lawsuit brought in New Jersey against a New Jersey school system and the TMO. The original ruling and every subsequent ruling was concerning that lawsuit. The lawsuit explicitly says that TM/SCI may not be taught in New Jersey. If some other court wishes to use Malnak v Yogi as precedent, they certainly can, but it is NOT a legally binding ruling anywhere save in the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit Court and the court specifically only ruled on its teaching in NJ. And, as I have pointed out, the specifics of the New Jersey case may not apply elsewhere where TM is taught. Specifically, in the public charter school case, TM is not funded by public money, and no SCI or other theoretical class relevant to TM is taught by the school. These were important issues in the original ruling, which I have a copy of. The court was careful to rule that "TM/SCI" could not be taught in the public schools in New Jersey. The practice of TM by itself was NOT discussed by the Meanor court save to point out that it was not the sole focus of the class--SCI teaching and discussion took up far more time than the practice of TM did. TM+SCI+puja was examined by the original court and the appeals courts. TM+puja was NOT considered by themselves and a ruling that explicitly examines all three at once and makes a decision on this basis cannot be used be used to make a decision on 2 out  of 3. Sparaig 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparaig, you continue to misrepresent the meaning of these Federal court rulings. They do NOT apply only to New Jersey. Unless and until a higher court reverses Malnak v. Yogi, the ruling, upheld by the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court, remains the guiding case law throughout the United States. What violates the U.S. Constitution in New Jersey violates the U.S. Constitution in every state. You also misrepresent the judges ruling, which also prohibited the U.S. Department of Education (then called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) from further funding TM instructions through educational grants - in ANY state. I won't bother addressing the rest of the spin and obfuscation, because I don't want to tear a surgical stitch from laughing. Askolnick 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew, as I have pointed out, the injuction is *binding* only in the jurisdiction of the 3rd District Court. And careful reading of the ruling shows that it refers to funding and facilitating by the federal government and the state and local governments of New Jersey. It says NOTHING about the teaching of TM using private funding while the PRACTICE of TM, by itself, not "TM/SCI," is facilitated in public schools outside of New Jersey:


 * IT IS on this 12 day of December, 1977, hereby Ordered and Adjudged that judgment be entered, declaring:


 * 1. That the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation and the teaching thereof, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss consciousness, the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education--First Year Course--Dawn of the First Year of the Age of Enlightenment, and the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the teaching thereof in the New Jersey public schools is therefore unconstitutional.


 * 2. That Defendants World Plan Executive Council--United States; Jerome W. Jarvis; Robert B. Kory; Janet Aaron; Board of Education of Maplewood-South Orange, New Jersey School District; Board of Education of West New York, New Jersey School District; Board of Education of Union City, New Jersey School District; Board of Education of Patterson, New Jersey School District; New Jersey State Department of Education; New Jersev State Board of Education; Fred G. Burke, as New Jersey Commissioner of Education; Charles Wilson; State of New Jersey and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the respective officers, agents, employees or any other person or entity acting for or at the behest of any of the foregoing, be and hereby are permanently enjoined:
 * (1) From the teaching, aiding in the teaching (including but not limited to the providing of teaching materials), and the solicitation of any municipality, school board or other political subdivision or governmental agency of the State of New Jersey or of the Federal government, for the purpose of promoting the teaching of any course of study which embodies and advocates any one or more of the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss-consciousness;
 * (2) From the use of the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education--First Year Course--Dawn of the First Year of the Age of Enlightenment, (or its substantial equivalent) and;
 * (3) From the practice of Transcendental Meditation or of the puja ceremony as heretofore practiced or performed (or the substantial equivalent of either), in any public school in the State of New Jersey;


 * 3. That costs shall be allowed to Plaintiffs.


 * This Court retains full jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the above-captioned case, subject only to the effect of any appeal from this judgment.


 * Sparaig 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I have to explain this AGAIN: If Federals Courts rule that teaching TM in New Jersey public schools is unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional in public schools throughout the United States. The U.S. Constitution protects the citizens of every state, not just people who live in New Jersey. The case before the court involved the New Jersey school system, so the court decision barred the New Jersey school system from continuing to teach TM. If other states were also violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, the courts would have also named them in the decision. It shouldn't take a legal scholar to understand that what violates the U.S. Constitution in New Jersey would also violate the U.S. Constitution in any other state that tries to teach Hindu or other religious doctrines to public school students. And yes, I know, some schools continue to do this, whether it's teaching the Godspell of Jesus Christ or the Godspell of Mahesh Yogi, it is still unconstitutional. Court battles continue today because too many school board members still won't accept the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 215 years after it was ratified.


 * For nearly 30 years, the TM movement has tried to convince its members and the public that the decision in Malnik v. Yogi. That is nothing but spin. When the Federal courts decided that "the practice of Transcendental Meditation or of the puja ceremony as heretofore practiced or performed (or the substantial equivalent of either), in any public school in the State of New Jersey" is unconstitutional, they effectively established that it is unconstitutional to do so anywhere else in the United States - because every citizen of the United States is protected by the same Constitution and Bill or Rights. In its 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the laws of Kansas that permitted public school segregation to be unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled racially "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." That decision made it unconstituional to racially segregate students in every state of the union, because the U.S. Constitution protects students everywhere, not just in the Topeka, Kansas.Askolnick 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you need to look up the definition of binding vs persuasive precedent. Here, let Wikipedia help: Precedent. Also, look up the definition of Stare decisis. The case you site involving the Supreme Court is binding throughout the USA because the US Supreme Court trumps all lower courts. The US Circuit Courts do not and CANNOT issue judgements that are binding in the jurisdiction of any other circuit court. Aditionally, there are differences between the situation in New Jersey and the situation elsewhere that would require a new court decision to decide the issue. The Malnak v Yogi ruling left possible loopholes which the TMO obvioiusly is trying to take advantage of. The situations are different enough, to me at least (and I suspect to lower courts that might be handed any new case) that the decision of Malnak v Yogi may not apply. Certainly, Malnak v Yogi established a well-referenced test for religiousness, but that is my point: it is entirely possible that the new situation will pass the Malnak test. That doesn't mean the teaching of TM will be allowed to continue in the non-NJ school systems, only that the Malnak test, by itself,  won't be sufficient to determine what to do. Sparaig 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While US Circuit Courts do not and CANNOT issue judgements that are binding in the jurisdiction of any other circuit court, they commonly issue judgements that become the standard used by all other courts. Such is the case of Malnak v. Yogi. For nearly 30 years, numerous courts have cited the landmark case as the basis for their rulings. Rather than being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling and three decades of case law which followed have essentially established the findings in Malnak v. Yogi as law of the land. But you are right when you say, if the "situations are different enough, the decision of Malnak v. Yogi may not apply." If Maharishi will remove his religious content from the TM initiation ceremony, then Malnak v. Yogi may no longer apply. But you know he won't. Therefore, unless Maharishi says it's O.K. to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling in Malnak v. Yogi makes it clear that teaching TM in public schools violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. (You probably know Maharishi won't do this since he wants his movement to continue claiming that the ruling only applies to New Jersey - as you do here), the ruling in Malnak v. Yogi makes it clear that teaching TM in public schools violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. For 30 years, the TM movement has simply denied the court's conclusion, that the TM initiation ceremony is based on Maharishi's brand of Hinduism. It has not gone to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the courts' ruling that TM is a religious practice and therefore may not be taught in public schools. Instead, it has its apologists scurrying about making false and misleading statements that TM is only considered a relgious practice by courts in New Jersey. Like the rumps of 7000 TM-Sidhas, that argument won't fly. As I've pointed out, courts in other states have used Malnak v. Yogi to guide their decisions in protecting the Constitutional rights of students throughout the United States.Askolnick 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they generally have used the Malnak TEST to guide other rulings, not the case itself. The case is extremely limited in scope, and as I keep telling you, may not apply to how TM is used in other public schools in the country. And you sound very illogical here. If MMY's primary goal was stealth Hinduism, he would certainly be willing to cancel the use of the puja unless he agrees with what you apparently believe: handing fruit and flowers to soomone iat the beginning of a ceremony makes the TM student a Hindu. Likewise, if his goal was to sell TM for the sake of money, he'd be willing to forgo the puja. It seems very obvious that his stated reasons for requiring the puja are the ones he believes are true: 1) it honors his teacher and 2) he believes that TM doesn't work without the puja being performed first. The second is obviously HIS religious belief, but I don't think Malnak v Yogi was decided ONLY because MMY has hindu beliefs. Sparaig 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the landmark case was decided because the courts don't believe it's constitutional to have public school students participating in ceremonies that foster Mahesh Yogi's religious beliefs. What his religious beliefs are is irrelevant. What was relevant was that school children were unknowingly being exposed to those religious beliefs. Malnak v. Yogi found that the TM inititiation ceremony is a thinly disguised Hindu ceremony, in which the inititate is invited to bow before Hindu deities - including Maharishi's deified teacher. Here is the court's translation of just one part of the TM teacher's chant, which is spoken as he/she bows before the picture of the deified "Guru Dev":


 * "The Unbounded, like the endless canopy of the sky, the omnipresent in all creation to Him, to Shri Guru Dev, I bow down, the Eternal, the Pure, the Immovable ... to Shri Guru Dev, I bow down."


 * There are similar genuflections to other Hindu deities during the TM inititiation puja. This was one of the three reasons the courts cited for deciding that teaching TM is teaching religion and therefor prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Imposing such religious worship on public schools students is unconstitutional in any American public school - not just in New Jersey as you continue to misleadingly suggest. Such disingeuous spin has not convinced anyone but Maharishi's followers, who view their guru's words as Godpell truth. The rest of us are not so easily persuaded. What is unconstitutional in New Jersey public schools is unconstitutional in every public school througout the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans equal protection under our federal laws. People in every state and territory of the United States are protected by the same Constitutioni that protects people in New Jersey. No amount of "SIMS shuffling" is going to change this fact. It is unconsitutional for the government to fund religious instructions in public schools throughout the United States. It doesn't matter if the instruction involves the Godspell of Jesus Christ or the Godspell of Mahesh Yogi. It's unconstitutional, period. That's why the decision of Malnak v. Yogi has stood for three decades and has served to guide American courts throughout the land. No amount of SIMS shuffling is going to change that fact. Teaching TM involves teaching religious beliefs. Therefore, it cannot be taught by any school run by national, state, or local government. That's been the law of the land for nearly 30 years. Get over it. Askolnick 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are differences between the public charter school and its involvement in TM touted on David Lynch's website and the Malnak v Yogi case, and these differences may be (or may not be) substantial enough to circumvent the Malnak test. Towit, the instruction is privately funded, and there is no classtime spent on theoretical discussions. Sparaig 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Increasingly
I had erased increasingly from the sentence: Still, the link between TM and Hinduism, from where the movement's founder Maharishi Mahesh Yogi comes, appears to become increasingly evident as time passes. Askolnik commented '' If these were NPOV, they wouldn't be complaints of critics. The comment is already qualified by "appears": "increasingly" is important point of the critics.) But this seems to be a wrong use of language, because, either something is evident or not. Of course something can become evident, but once it is evident, it is simply evident. So the qualifier increasingly'' is really completely unnecessary, and is in fact just a phrase of rethoric to emphazise. Askolnik argues that this is what the critics say, but here critics is just a generic term without anybody specific being cited. In stating the opinion of critics - in fact in a general way - any aditional emphazis should be avoided because of NPOV. WP policies state that the reader of the article should have the impression that the whole article is written in one voice, and that he cannot make out at any point the opinion of the editor. Leaving off words like 'increasingly' is just one example of following this rule. In fact, I think one should avoidof making POV statements, by (only vaguely) disguising them as anonymous statements. You can always say: Critics say: and then say whatever you want, but even then you have to take care of the tone AFAIunderstand. As long as you don't have a specific quote, within quotqtion marks, one should follow a distanced style, and avoid any expressive or strengthening words. Otherwise its a minor thing to me, and I won't fight for it, but all these things tend to add up. Even words like Still, .. express opinion. You can look it up in the WP guidelines.So I tried to make a better suggestion -- hanuman &#2384;^ 19:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I find that sentence to be very awkward and I would welcome a better rewrite. Your suggestions are appreciated. However, the point that needs to be communicated is that TM's critics claim that TM is clearly based on Hindu religious beliefs and that this fact has become clearer over time, as Maharishi introduced more and more of his Hindu-based products and services around the world. This is a pretty safe point to make. I don't think anyone would say TM's critics don't argue this.


 * No, "increasingly" is not used as a qualifier to emphasize or strengthen. It's used to point out that the Hinduism foundation of TM has become increasingly clear as Maharishi expanded the products and services his movement sells and hypes.


 * When communicating the views and allegations of critics, one can hardly avoid expressing a point of view - because that's exactly what we're trying to do: communicate the point of view of TM's critics. If you think citing a critic is necessary, no problem. It would be easy to do so. But efforts to make the opinions of critics more neutral would be factually incorrect. So what is necessary is to describe the critics' views - which are certainly not neutral - in a neutral way.


 * Being "evident" is not like being "pregnant"; There can be degrees. One condition can be much more evident than another. "Evident" means "apparent," "obvious," "easily seen," "easily understood." "When the fog lifted, the path through the jungle became more evident to the explorers." "The solution to the math problem became more evident to students after the teacher drew a diagram."  Nicht wahr?


 * Well, as you say Evident" means "apparent," "obvious," "easily seen," "easily understood." , 'easily seen' is either easily seen, or not easily seen (e.g. difficult to see), so you actually contradict yourself here. This is even more obvious when you say the point that needs to be communicated is that TM's critics claim that TM is clearly based on Hindu religious belief Really, its enough to say 'TM's critics claim that TM is based on Hindu religious belief', the clearly is unnecessary, just a word added in trying to strengthen ones position. But for that one should use facts und sources. Thats enough really. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Wiki editors, we shouldn't alter the arguments of critics say, to make them appear more neutral. Our job as editors is to accurately represent their opinions, not sanitize them or make them more neutral. As for contradicting oneself, you just did this by writing, "This is even more obvious when you say ..."  Here you clearly recognize that there are different degrees of obviousness -- as there are different degrees of being apparent, easily seen, easily understood, and evident. More important, I don't think it is proper to be trying to tone down the views of critics or to make them more NPOV. TM's critics say the evidence for TM's religious nature is clear and has continued to mount. I do not understand your reasoning for wanting to substitute a weaker view.Askolnick 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a major misunderstanding about WP:NPOV here, Askolnick. NPOV applies throughout the article. That means that both sides of an argument should be given, regarding its content, but that doesn't mean that polemics in tone or style should be repeated. You somehow seem to think that under the heading Critics the critics simply make their version of the article, but that is not true. What the critics say must be reported, but it also should be viewed according to its relevance. Reporting is not imitating in style, and that is all my argument. Its not about a weaker view, but about neutral, not emotionally enhanced expressions.And you are right, in more obvious the more is superfluous, so I correct myself, it is simply obvious.But here I was arguing with you on a discussion page, were our expressions will not be strictly NPOV. For example here I can say what I believe, while at the article, I am simply an editor, right?
 * See here WP:NPOV:We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name. 


 * Besides that, just to give you some food for thought, the whole argument of the 'critics' (who are they, saying it that way? I think it was just some figure of speech you invented to say what you want to say) is totally illogical, because TM is either a religion, or has religious aspects, or is a religion to some, and not to some others, but that doesn't change because now Ayurveda or Stapathyaveda is an add-on programm. Every item of this list can be scrutinized for its religiousness, but it is irrelevant for any other item of this list. Ayurveda for example is a prescientific system of medicine, which may incorporate some superstitious beliefs, but its in no way Hindu, as the Hindu pantheon plays no part in it. That it is called 'Veda' is purely incidental, here Veda means only a body of knowledge, as these texts are all in Sanskrit, any Indologist would say that has nothing to do with the Veda. Hindu gods like Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva play no role in it. Its all about some elements like fire, water, earth, and about pranas and nadis. Same is true for Stapathya Veda, its just not Veda and Hindu in the same way. Its just a very poor and illogical argument, very uninformed. The other thing is, whatever Ayurveda or Stapathya Veda maybe, does have no resemblance of the nature of TM, as these are standalone programmes, that is both Ayurveda and Stapathya Veda don't necessitate TM practise nor does TM practise necessitate the later. So if you feel like citing a critic, do it, but then we need name and quotation marks and source. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 11:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am recovering from surgery earlier this week, so it is not an exaggeration to say that sitting in my office chair responding to your comments is a pain. Acutally it is big pain, so I'm going to have to stop after this. If you bothered to check the history of the article, you would see that your insulting comment is false. I did not create the content of the critic's section of the article, nor its format. So your allegation that this is "just some figure of speech" I "invented to say what" I "want to say" is as false as it is insulting. Also false is your claim that Maharishi Ayurveda is "in no way Hindu, as the Hindu pantheon plays no part in it." The Hindu pantheon plays a big part in Maharishi Ayurveda. The TM movement offers yagyas as one of its Ayurveda treatments. And yagyas are ceremonies performed by Hindu monks to appease Hindu deities.


 * If YOU feel the need for someone to cite a source for any of the criticisms in the article, then please ask. Simply add a to the text. I'm sure someone will obige you since it would be very easy to cite sources for these critical views. Askolnick 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Askolnick, I wish you well with your recovery. Try to give yourself some rest. I am also very busy. Sorry to hear you feel insulted. What I said applies to the content, whoever created it. If you say its an insult to say that you created it, then why do you defend it? Ayurveda is indeed not in any way Hindu, but yagyas are. Yagyas though are not part of Ayurveda, it's a different type of program and is usually connected to Jyotish, Vedic Astrology, which is just another type of astrology. So yes, yagyas are Hindu, but Ayurveda isn't. The word veda plays no significant role for Ayurveda or Stapathyaveda as I said. Lets say things clearly in the article and not spread wrong information.I know that the movement offers yagyas, but I am unaware that it does so under the title of Ayurveda. Anyway, it's not Ayurveda, and if they included it, it is wrong. We do not have to repeat that mistake by saying 'Ayurveda is Hindu' It is not! Actually Hinduism is post-Vedic, but Ayurveda is not even Vedic. -- hanuman &#2384;^ 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, please, you know it was a insult to say that I "invented" the critics arguments so that I could "say what I want to say." That charge is as false as it is insulting. And please stop misrepresenting my statements. What I said was insulting was your allegation that I "invented" the critics ruse in order to present my own views as theirs. Please do not make any more false and unjustified personal attacks.


 * Also, please refrain from making obfuscating statements. The subject of the discussion was Maharishi Ayurveda (R) - the trademarked line of products and services marketed by Maharishi and his organization. No one was talking about Ayurveda. As I repeatedly pointed out, Yagyas are among the Hindu-based practices being prescribed by Maharishi Ayurveda practitioners.  I agree that we should "say things clearly in the article and not spread wrong information." To to that, we need to avoid misleading readers with confusing statements or obfuscations. When we're talking about trademarked TM products and services, we should NOT substitute generic terminology and then make false statements, such as your claiming Maharishi Ayurveda "is in no way Hindu," when the record shows it clearly is. Askolnick 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi "Developed" the Technique
I don't think Maharishi has ever said he "developed" Transcendental Medtiation. He always seems to credit Guru Dev and the Vedic tradition. So I changed it to "introduced," which is more commonly used. TimidGuy 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He refined the technique into its current minimalist form and developed the teacher training process. Sparaig 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then that's what the article should say. Neither "refining the meditation technique" or "developing a tearcher training process" means the same as "developing the meditation technique." Askolnick 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll change it to "first introduced."TimidGuy 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I reverted. "First introduced" is redudant. Introduction means makes a first appearanced. Unless you're talking about "introducing" a person to someone, there can only be one "introduction" of something. Askolnick 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even that would be erroneous by MMY's own statements. He claims that he *revived* the technique and that it originally was part of all the world's major religious and spiritual traditions but that its essential simplicity has gotten lost over time as the technique was passed from one generation to the next--a spiritual equivalent of the "telephone game" that people play. Sparaig 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the word "claim"
The Guideline on Words to avoid says that the word "claim" shouldn't be used because "it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness." I'd like to change the lead to remove this word, and thereby foster a more neutral point of view. As I have time, I may change other instances in this article. I hope everyone will agree with this.TimidGuy 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Topic of entry
Apologies. I should have included an item on the Talk page about the change of "techniques" to "technique." My thinking was that Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program are different tecnhiques. The majority of people who learn Transcendental Meditation don't also learn the TM-Sidhi program. Maybe we should consider focusing on Transcendental Mediation in this entry, and then have a separate entry for the TM-Sidhi program. And thanks for removing the redundancy in my earlier edit. I thought of that right after I posted it.TimidGuy 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to leave it plural in the introduction because it's the only accurate way to describe the movement's crackpot claims of having scientifically proven that they've discovered the certain and sure way to create peace, prosperity, and heaven on earth. They claim to be able to do by practicing their "yogic flying" technique, not just the introductory TM technique. And they're hawking other meditation techniques to the suckers, claiming that they too will give them health, peace, and prosperity, while emptying their pockets.Askolnick 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Strong words. I guess that's my official welcome. : ) TimidGuy 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I calls'em as I sees'em. However, those words were not directed in any way at you. I've been watching the Mahesh Yogi and his merry band of followers now for nearly a quarter century. And that's how I sees'em. That's not only how I sees'em, it's how I've described them in a number of published articles, including an investigative news and perspective report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What's more, I'm in rather good company. Many prominent scientists, educators, journalists, and others have strongly criticized Mahesh Yogi and his organization for hoodwinking so many people. I wasn't aware that you're posting here for the first time. Now that I am, welcome. Askolnick 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope we can work together to create an excellent Wikipedia entry, one that satisfies both of our perceptions of the reality of the situation.TimidGuy 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi Effect
I'm new and am still trying to figure out how this works. I was just looking at the History, and it looks as if Askolnick added a section about Maharishi claiming that thousands levitate. Was this discussed in the Talk section? Do the Guidelines require that it be discussed because this has been flagged a controversial article? Thanks for patience with newbies. TimidGuy

(Wrote this before I saw your nice contribution, askolnick, on my talk page, which clearly explained that indeed it's necessary to discuss changes.) TimidGuy


 * My view is that simple, well-sourced additions of information that are not likely to be challenged do not necessarily need to be discussed first. The information I added is straightfoward and well-sourced - the book Flim-Flamm by James Randi which was already listed in the article as a source for information. I took the statement right from the book. I've had enough experience editing contentious articles to know what information is not likely to start an edit war. When in doubt, I'll discuss a change first.  However, it's certainly wise for a newbie to discuss before making any substantial change. That will help avoid making mistakes that can be disruptive and cause unintended animosity. Askolnick 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. This does raise a question in my mind, though, about the extent of the material that keeps getting added to this article.

I've skimmed the guidelines and feel that I have at least a vague understanding of NPOV, how to handle differing views, reputable souces, etc. But in my cursory look at the guidelines I haven't yet seen any related to the overall shape and scope of an article. For example, suppose I were to add well-sourced material in each of the sections that seem to me to be anti-TM so that both points of view are represented. It seems like the article will become impossibly long. In fact, it already seems a little shapeless and unwieldy. It's hard for me to imagine how this article could ever evolve to a point where it's on a par with some of the truly extraodinary Wikipedia articles that I've seen. No doubt as I get more experience I'll have a sense for how this could work, but right now it's hard to envision. TimidGuy 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you kind of answer parts of your own question here. "Truly extraordinary Wikipedia articles" are just that - truly extraordinary. The rest of Wikipedia consists of less-than-extraordinary articles. Generally the most outstanding articles are on less contentious subjects and written primarily by a few editors who share a similar outlook - at least on how Wiki articles should be written.
 * It is hard for a mob (or even less-contentious groups) of editors to produce a substantial article that's well "shaped." What's more, the CSICOP article is a work in progress, and as the templates on top indicate, its neutrality and factual accuracy are under dispute.
 * I'm a little puzzled by your argument that a) the article needs a balanced POV; b) adding more information favorable to the TM movement will lengthen the article; and c) adding more pro-TM material will make the article "impossibly long." Putting all these suppositions together it seems to point to the conclusion that material unfavorable to TM should be removed and replaced wit pro-TM material. Is that what you're arguing? Askolnick 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just trying to imagine, given the way that things are headed, how we could ever arrive at an excellent article. But your comments are very helpful, and I realize that editors involved in contentious articles can have a more modest goal. I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. TimidGuy


 * Thanks. I'm happy to be of help. Askolnick 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

New "Breaking Away" section
I see that David Spector added a new section, which was discussed during July. Since this material doesn't reference a reputable source would it be considered "original research" and therefore disallowed? Thanks. TimidGuy 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it does cite two sources, which are primary sources for most of those opinions. This section needs some editing. And he should provide a link to the web site for MMY's broadcasts. But I don't have the time right now to look at it more closely. In addition, the information he added is pretty much common knowledge among people familiar with the TM movement. Do you see a problem with any of the statements? Askolnick 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Gradually I learn this. It's helpful to have this understanding of common knowledge not needing to be sourced. What I meant to say was that there seemed to be background information in his post that wasn't referenced on these pages, making it "original research." But truthfully, I had only glanced at them. And in any case, the common knowledge argument would make it acceptable. TimidGuy 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * David Spector, IIRC, is one of the teachers who has broken away. It is his website that he gives reference to... Sparaig 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Sparaig. Yes, you're right. And it does seem a little odd that he uses this article as an ad for his technique. TimidGuy 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Randi
In the Randi section of this article, there's a statement that reads "Randi concluded that Rabinoff's data were simply made up." I've read through that section of Randi's book twice and can't find where Randi concludes that. I even got out my reading glasses the second time to make sure I didn't miss something. : ) Could someone direct me to the page number where he says it? Thanks! TimidGuy 12:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TG, the reference for the statement that Rabinoff made up the data is not Randi's book. The citation is to the Skeptic's Dictionary. Robert Carroll, who is the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary, cites Randi's book as his source.


 * BTW, it should be noted that Rabinoff or his fellow TMers could easily have refuted Randi and Carroll and embarrassed TM's critics by simply showing where Rabinoff got the data he claimed to have. When challenged, scientists are expected to provide access to their data to prove that they're not making things up. When researchers refuse to provide access to their data - or even to explain where they came from! - it is reasonable to conclude that the data were made up. Askolnick 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I checked Carroll's page and found that he cites the book. So I got the book. Carroll's page says that Randi reported in his book that Rabinoff did a study related to crime, accidents, and crop production and invented the data. Rabinoff never did a study on crime, accidents, and crop production. TimidGuy 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing "However" and last sentence of the lead paragraph.
I deleted "However" from the fourth sentence in the lead because Wiki guidelines say that the word "can imply that one alternative is less favored than another". In other words, it can imply that the latter insertion is true or better. They suggest the format: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z." This change seems to better reflect that suggestion. I eliminated "the nature of the movement itself" because the phrase seems vague and meaningless. First of all, we're describing TM in the entry, not a "movement" (whatever that is) and to question the "nature" of something appears here to be pejorative and unsubstantiated. Who are these critics and what exactly are they saying? I eliminated the final sentence, as the guidelines say it's often best to avoid the term "cult" except in specific, non-controversial contexts. Moreover, the sentence doesn't answer "who" these critics are, how many they number, and why they feel it's a "cult" as they define that. If one feels there's enough data to support this issue, it should be dealt with elsewhere in the context of specific clarifications, accompanied by the opposing view offered from those (many) who feel that it's not a "cult" at all.Purple iris 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Purple Iris


 * This is well said, Purple Iris. Welcome. You've done well to study the guidelines and to make changes accordingly.


 * I see that other editors restored the material that you deleted without also carefully describing the reasons for their changes here on the Talk page -- in blatant violation of the very clear guidelines above. I think I'll again delete those sentences based on your very clear arguments and will hope that the other editors explain clearly why they are making changes.


 * Since you made your changes based in Wikipedia guidelines, I hope that if other editors revert them, they will clearly explain why the guidelines don't apply. TimidGuy 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Purple, welcome to Wikipedia. It is clear from what you say on your talk page that you have come to make the TM article a better article. People who come to work on one article or several similar articles are considered editors of Single Purpose Accounts. Because of this, their standing within the Wiki community is not high. Their opinions and suggestions are not regarded as highly as those of editors who demonstrate an interest in making Wikipedia better, rather than promoting a personal cause. It would also help you to understand that this is a very contentious article, that is prone to editing wars. Because of this, you would be better off discussing changes on this talk page before making them - at least until you gain enough experience editing articles to avoid the perception of being disruptive. For example, removing the well-known, well-documented fact that many cult-authorities and other TM critics consider the TM movement a cult, is inappropriate. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. And the sentence you removed is specific and non-controversal: There is no dispute that many critics consider the TM movement a cult. If you would like citations to be inserted, no problem. There are many to choose from, including many authorities on cults, a commissioned report prepared for the French government, and other published references. An introduction is not the place to prove each statement. It is only a summary of the most noteworthy facts about the subject. Points and counterpoints can follow below. The introduction should not read like a TM brochure, listing only a pro-TM point of view. It must also summarize the views of its critics. Welcome. Your contributions are appreciated. (For example, deletion of the unnecessary word "However," is an improvement.) Not all of the editors working on this article are going to agree, but we can agree to getting along with each other to make this article better. Askolnick 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as I feared, our new editor has touched off an edit war. Purple and TimidGuy, you are both Single Purpose Account editors. You are not going to win any edit war here, so please stop. If you want to make contentious changes to the article, you need to convince other editors of your point of view on this talk page first. Otherwise, I will ask an administrator to protect the article. Askolnick 12:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Askolnick, for coming here to discuss. I felt bad that Iris had obviously spent a lot of time studying the guidelines and had put a lot of thought into her first contribution -- only to have her contribution reverted without any discussion. I changed it in the hope that you and the other editor would come here to explain your reasoning. And I'm pleased that you've done so.


 * I don't see this as a war but rather as a collaboration. It's our only choice. And we can collaborate more effectively if we discuss our changes.


 * I think your suggestion is excellent -- to first discuss, then change. I'll always do that. I hope other editors will do that to -- even if it's a point they don't feel will be controversial.


 * Let's call this a skirmish -- one that's taught me a valuable lesson. : ) TimidGuy 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks TG. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with more experienced editors making changes that they don't think will be contentious and, if reverted, turning to this talk page to discuss their changes rather than edit warring. But until a new editor (especially one who has strong personal views on the subject) gets sufficient editing experience, it is best to use the talk page to see if other editors would object to the changes. This is especially so when removing the work of other editors. Removing or altering another editor's work is far more provocative than just adding information. If you or Puple Iris don't agree with another editor's change, at least for the time until you've got some successful editing experience under your belt, you will find it much easier and less hostile to challenge other editors on the talk page first. Rather than call this a skirmish, let's just say we bumped heads. :-) Askolnick 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I like your way of putting it. : ) I noticed that Mike didn't explain his changes. Note that he seems to have inserted the word "social" but there's an error in markup that seems to be disallowing the change from appearing. TimidGuy 11:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. I now understand that he linked to "Social Movement." TimidGuy 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing section on research
I've been making some changes to the research section, primarily replacing a couple of references to reports that appear to have been largely written from TM press releases rather than the actual studies. I've replaced them with links to the abstracts of the published studies, which more accurately describe the research. For example, the Forbes article exaggerates the study's findings: "Transcendental meditation (TM) reduces hypertension and cuts down on the need for blood pressure-lowering medications." The researcher's published conclusion is much more careful and cautious: TM "may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension in African Americans." Such a mistatement can cause a great deal of harm by convincing people with life-threatening hypertension that they should meditate instead of medicate. Even worse, the last statement about published research (re effect on pain) was not only inaccurate and misleading, it didn't even identify the reference! This section concerns published research, not exaggerations of research findings published in lay media. So I think it should stick to describing the actual research, rather than how it is being hyped.Askolnick 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good pont. The research can stand on its own. TimidGuy 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Case Against Using the Carroll Citation
In two instances the article seeks to discredit the research on the Transcendental Meditation technique, which includes 160 peer-reviewed studies, by citing an allegation made in The Skeptic’s Dictionary by Todd Carroll.

These instances are:

“However, many critics, such as James Randi and Robert Todd Carroll, author of the Skeptic's Dictionary[16], charge that most of this research is either trivial, poorly designed and conducted, or even cooked up. . . .”

“James Randi, noted skeptic and critic of paranormal claims, investigated the claims of Dr. Robert Rabinoff, an MUM physics professor and researcher on the "Maharishi effect," that a large gathering of TM meditators had reduced crime and accidents and increased crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa. After speaking with the Fairfield Police Department, the Iowa Department of Agriculture, and Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles, Randi concluded that Rabinoff's data were simply made up [18]” [The citation given is to Carroll’s The Skeptic’s Dictionary.]

In the first instance the allegation is that the research is “cooked up.” In the second, it’s alleged that Rabinoff’s data “were simply made up.”

Here is the relevant paragraph from The Skeptic’s Dictionary in which Carroll says that Rabinoff did a study and says that, according to Randi, the data was invented:

“One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. James Randi checked with the Fairfield Police Dept, the Iowa Dept of Agriculture, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and found that the Rabinoff’s data was invented (Randi 1982, 99-108).”

In summary, the allegation is that Rabinoff did a study on the Maharishi Effect as it relates to crime, accidents, and crop production and that he made up the data.

The problem with this is that Rabinoff has never done a study on the Maharishi Effect as it relates to crime, auto accidents, and crop production. The only record of this study is in Carroll’s The Skeptic’s Dictionary. This study cannot be found in any index of scientific literature. It is not contained in the multi-volume work that collects all research done on the Transcendental Meditation technique. The director of research at the time when this alleged study was supposed to have been done, David Orme-Johnson, says that Rabinoff didn’t do research on crime, auto accidents, and crop production. Further, Rabinoff wasn’t engaged in research on Transcendental Meditation during the time period in question. The one study that he did do, related to weather, came two years later.

I propose that if this article is to include a reference to claims that Rabinoff made at a meeting of a small group at the University of Oregon in 1978, we not use Carroll, given that he inaccurately represents what Randi says. We should directly use Randi, and try to be accurate. TimidGuy 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TG, we do not know how Rabinoff described his facts and figures at his talk at the University of Oregon in 1978. We don't know if he said the findings that "scientifically demonstrate" the "Maharishi Effect" were from his study or some other study, but if he didn't actually use the word "study," he clearly implied it. What we do know from Carroll and Randi is that Rabinoff, speaking as an assistant professor of physics from Maharishi International University told the University of Oregon audience that the so-called Maharishi Effect has been "scientifically demonstrated" and among the findings that "scientifically demonstrate" this is the overwhelmingly (but fictious) beneficial effects on crime, crop yields, and auto accidents. Even if Rabinoff did not say the word "study," that was clearly communicated to the university audience. For how else does one collect and compare data but through a study? The collection and comparison of data IS a study, no matter what you call it.
 * So I fail to see anything seriously wrong with Carroll's account. While his use of the word "study" may or may not be the most accurate word choice (I can't tell from Randi's published account.) the essential information it relates is absolutely true. If it said, "The findings of one TM study presented by a MIU physics professor said..." instead of "One TM study by a MUM physics professor said...", there would be no doubt about the accuracy. A TM scientist and faculty member speaks at the University of Oregon and claims that a phemonenon has been "scientifically demonstated" at his university. The TM researcher summarizes the findings, which he claims demonstrate "the Maharishi effect" everywhere - by the large drop in the crime rate and auto accident rate and a great boost in crop yields. Obviously, the audience would presume that he's describing a study - even if he did not say the word "study." Seeing that we have no idea from Randi's book whether Rabinoff specifically used the word "study" in his presentation, I see no reason not to use this reference which has a lot of useful information. You really have not established as a fact that Carroll got this wrong. The fact that TM did not cite such a study in no way proves that Rabinoff didn't claim to have done a study. He could have simply made up such a study just as he made up its fictitious findings. Askolnick 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, I agree with you that Rabinoff never did such a study. But the question really is this: Did Rabinoff claim, directly or by implication, that he (or another MIU scientist) did such a study before the U. of Oregon audience? Clearly he did. I don't think you can impeach the credibility of The Skeptic's Dictionary by nit picking at minor inaccuracies. If you want to poke at a possible mote in Carroll's eye, I think your time would be better spent worrying about the forest of rotten lumber in the eyes of TM "scientists" and promoters. That's what this article needs to address.Askolnick 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, askolnick, for your comments. I appreciate your helping to try to sort out this extremely important issue.

I don’t quite understand, though, your response. First you say that you feel the reference to Carroll in the context of Rabinoff should stand. Yet you seem to be agreeing that there are inaccuracies in Carroll’s paragraph in which he says that Rabinoff did a study and made up the data. And you agree that Rabinoff didn’t do the study.

It makes no sense for Wikipedia to reference a problematic secondary source (Carroll referencing Randi) when we can simply present the primary source (Randi). (And, one hopes, do it accurately.) TimidGuy 20:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, TG, That's not what I said. Please read my comments more carefully. I did not say there are inacuracies in Carroll's paragraph. Furthermore, the issue is NOT whether Rabinoff did the study (it's pretty clear he made the study up.). The issue is whether Rabinoff SAID he personally did the study. And we have no idea whether he did or not.


 * You say that it "makes no sense" to reference "a problematic secondary source." (Actually, it's a tertiary source. Randi's book is a secondary source.) To the contrary, it makes very good sense. Readers can quickly follow the link and read the entire Skeptic's Dictionary article. They can't do that with Randi's book. I'll say it again, we don't know if there is a problem with Carroll's account, and even if there were a problem, it would be absolutely inconsequential. Askolnick 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, we have no account of what Rabinoff said, save what Carroll says, and every peripheral statement that makes about Rabinoff that Carroll makes is wrong, but we should trust Carroll anyway, and it doesn't matter even if we shouldn't trust Carroll, because it is "absolutely inconsquential" to what he says about what Rabninoff says... Do I have that right? Sparaig 07:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not right at all. We have Randi's published account. And NO one has demonstrated the anything Carroll reported was wrong. After all, data from a study doesn't appear out of the blue sky. It is likely that Rabinoff claimed that he and/or his colleagues collected these data. Unless you can prove that Rabinoff didn't say that (and I believe he did), then you have no evidence that Carroll got anything wrong.Askolnick 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I’ve shown that the Wikipedia entry on the Transcendental Meditation technique references an error contained in The Skeptic’s Encyclopedia, which alleges that Robert Rabinoff did a study and made up the data.

I’m gong to delete the reference to The Skeptic’s Encyclopedia in the paragraph discussing Rabinoff. In addition, I’m going to make a minor edit in the following phrase:

"Randi concluded that Rabinoff's data were simply made up [18]"

Randi didn’t say this in the chapter.

I’m going to change it to “Randi was unable to verify Rabinoff’s claims.”

And I’m also going to qualify the description of Rabinoff as a researcher on the Maharishi Effect, since he only did one study, and that came a couple years after the incident. I’m also going to add a phrase that says that this was during a talk to a small group at the University of Oregon.

These may seem like small changes, but the entry in Wikipedia alleges that most of the hundreds of studies on Transcendental Meditation are “cooked up.” And the allegation that Rabinoff did a study and made up the data is offered as evidence.

Rabinoff MAY have made unsubstantiated claims when speaking to a small group at the University of Oregon in 1978, and if he did that’s reprehensible. But it’s not the same as publishing a study with fabricated data. An encyclopedia entry should be precise. TimidGuy 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we don't know whether Rabinoff claimed to have done the research he mentioned. But that's exactly what's wrong with Carroll's account. He says that Rabinoff did it. TimidGuy 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do that if you want to start an edit war.
 * I can't make this point any clearer. You've shown no such thing. Unless you can prove that Rabinoff didn't say or imply that he did the study (that somehow the data he reported at the U. of Oregon magically appeared out of thin air) you cannot honestly say that Carroll was wrong. Nor was Carroll wrong in his summation of what Randi reported in his book Flimflam. He didn't quote Randi, he paraphrased him and were you to ask Randi, I am certain that he'd say Carroll got it right.
 * Speaking of getting facts wrong, Carroll never said that Rabinoff "published the study." If getting any fact wrong means that nothing else an editor says can be trusted, why should we consider your comments? Clearly you spoke incorrectly. If we were to hold you to the same standard that you insist must be applied to Carroll, then there will be no reason to respond to your comments. And there is a big difference here. We KNOW that Carroll never said Rabinoff "published the study." You got that wrong beyond any doubt. But we don't know if what Carroll wrote is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, it is likely enough that Rabinoff either said or implied that he collected the data, that is, did a study.
 * No one has a clue what percentage of TM studies were "cooked up." It's not necessary for less than scruplous scientists to do much "cooking" to get the results they want. They can simply fail to protect against experimenter's bias The point you make is irrelevant. The important point is that TM research has been so riddled with bias, error, and outright deception, that it is not smart to trust any of it without replication by truly independent researchers. Askolnick 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a good place for the Carroll citation would be in the sentence where it's claimed that the research is trivial.TimidGuy 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I know all too well that the TM movement would like us to consider the its researchers' deception to be "trivial." But that's not going to happen. Researchers for a cult-like movement who promote their group with deceptive research should never be trusted. Askolnick 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this article, I came away with the impression that Rabinoff had published a study and made up the data. I think most readers come away with that impression. And I want to correct that by making the changes I stated.

I rest my case.

Regarding the point about the research being trivial. I was referring to the sentence in this article that says that most of the research is " either trivial, poorly designed and conducted, or even cooked up." Since there is no citation there, and since Carroll claims that most of the research is trivial, I thought that this would be a better place for a Carroll citation. TimidGuy 11:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the article you mean when you say "first read this study," is not this Wiki article. It's an article that is referenced. The article said Rabinoff did a study (which may be what he said). You said it says he "published a study." It does not. Now you say you want to remove the reference to prevent others from coming away with the same impression. If you want to "correct" your mistake, please read text more closely when you're criticizing it. Removing this reference because you misread what it says makes absolutely no sense.
 * The bottom line is that you are unable to prove that Carroll spoke falsely. There's no way to know from the information at our disposal that Rabinoff didn't claim to have collected the data he reported. And even if he didn't, it still would have been a logical inference to make - because where else did this mythical data come from?
 * I'm tired of arguing this point. I think I'd prefer to look up the pro-TM references that are cited in the TM article and see which ones I can delete because I find an inaccuracy. Shall I do that?  What you're doing is a severe example Wikilawyering WP:RS. You're attempting to remove sources by trying to find discrepencies in them. That's not at all a productive way of editing, becase virtually no source would be free from such attacks. Askolnick 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "first read this article." I meant this article on Transcendental Meditation. And the impression I got when I first read it -- and the impression I had until I looked at Randi. TimidGuy 17:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

TM Considered to be a Cult
I would like to discuss the last sentence of the lead paragraph, "Many critics consider the TM movement a religious cult." Askolnick insists that this sentence be kept in because it is well-substantiated and "noteworthy". I'd like to clarify with some questions, because I think clarification would serve any reader of this entry. 1) Who is the 'cult'? Is it Donovan, or David Lynch, or my sister practicing TM in Boston? Is it the athletes who have practiced TM through the years, or the rabbis, or the politicians? Just who are we talking about here? 2) Who are these critics - could you list them? Who commissioned a report for the French government on cults and what does it actually say? 3) Could you define 'cult' for me? Definitions range from "collective veneration" to "system of religious worship and ritual" to "transient fad" to "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal" to "groups that have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice" "followers under the guidance of a charismatic leader" and so on. The dictionary definitions vary widely. Is a cult just what someone thinks it is, or are there objective criteria for it as it's used in Wikipedia and this entry? If so, what are those criteria? Thanks for attention to this.


 * Purple Iris, you begin this discussion by quoting the sentence and citing my argument that I think the statement is well-documented and noteworthy. You then ask questions to "clarify" (I haven't a clue what). However, most of your questions do not address either the sentence's noteworthiness or documentation. They address the meaning of the word "cult." What you or I think the meaning of cult is is not relevant. So I don't understand why you are asking me to define cult. The CSICOP article does not define cult, although it does provide a link to the Wikipedia article cult. If you want to dispute the definition there, this page is not the right place. As for your request that I list the critics who consider TM a cult, I have not the time nor desire to compile an exhaustive list. The "Cult-like" section in the TM article provides more than enough examples to justify the statement that many critics consider TM a cult. If you want to know what the report on cults for the French government says, you can read it for yourself. The link is there to an English translation.
 * But let's cut to the chase. Your many words above appear to be dancing around something unsaid. Do you mean to say that the sentence "Many critics consider the TM movement a religious cult," is false? Or that it is not well-documented? If you are, then you're wasting your time talking about the meaning of cult. What you think or I think "cult" means will not change the fact that many critics say TM is one. Askolnick 05:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

TM Considered to be a cult
I forgot to sign my name above. 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Purple IrisPurple iris

Sthapatya Veda section
I added some detail about the demolition on campus. It had a sort of odd ant-Christian emphasis. And removed the word "however" according to the guidelines on words to avoid. TimidGuy 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

lkcl 22sep2006 heya timidguy: yeh, i replaced 'facing public resistance' with 'facing controversy', because actually if you read the whole of the article that was referred to, it is the _top_ of the article that highlights the 'facing public resistance'. actually, the knock-down plans were approved pretty much straight away by the local council, due to the increase in taxes that would be received; plus, the cost of keeping the monastery running is about $USD 500,000 per year: the local councillors _understand_ why - simply on practical grounds - that the movement wants to do away with such a decrepid and badly-built building. they are quoted as saying 'there's a reason why the monks abandoned it'!

Thanks for fixing this. Good points. TimidGuy 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

TM being a religion or a cult - it's neither
transcendental meditation is a technique - nothing more. i am genuinely surprised by the respect given to hinduism on wikipedia, as compared to the mess made of transcendental meditation - but that is beside the point i want to make.

the point i want to make needs some explanation. all religions have one goal: to reach 'God'. what religions DON'T do is proscribe a simple technique by which that can be achieved. in fact, most religions make quite a mess of it. they usually have a leader, whose example you are advised to follow, because those leaders are human, and it is considered easier for humans to relate to other humans (and this is where 'cults' get their power: they emphasise the following-of-the-leader). they usually have a book of words, which you are expected to read: this book gives you examples of the kind of lifestyle that you are expected to follow.

mostly, however, proscribed religion, as followed by billions of people, is actually quite sad (and has been for thousands of years). ... then again - there are many people for whom religion is successfully working: these peoples lives are genuinely spiritual and genuinely improved by their adherence to religious practices.

so, on the one hand we have religion, where you are expected to... well... work out for yourself what you are expected to reach (spiritual enlightenment) - through examples handed down from leader to books and your peers; on the other hand, we have transcendental meditation which is a very specific technique which actually has a well-documented effect on the mind and body, the practice of which is claimed to help short-cut the goal of reaching spiritual enlightenment... AND it is claimed, by the transcendental meditation leader that this technique was at one time a world-wide recognised part of virtually every known religion - and that this technique was lost - ironically because it was so common that nobody thought that it would ever be lost.

putting that in a nutshell: TM is a technique aimed at short-cutting your way to spiritual enlightenment by jacking your mind and body into some deep cosmic well of universal one-ness; religion is a way of life by which you are expected to somehow absorb spiritual enlightenment on your own - presumably by osmosis.

now.

why is it so hellishly difficult for people to get this through their thick heads?? [such that even the CIA have to target the transcendental meditation movement and try to take control of it, with a view to either usurping it or destroying it]

i can't answer that - i can only give you some hints. things to consider:

the TM movement's adherents are people; these people are human. some of them are a mess (and would be a worse mess if it wasn't for TM. they really shouldn't be let out on their own ;) and perhaps a TM centre is the best place for them! but that isn't the point of TM: it's not an escape). some of them are actually quite successful people, getting on with their lives - and they swear by TM that it helps them to make their lives better and more productive, and more enjoyable.  some of these people are religious; some of them are not.

collectively, overall, however, you see a group of people whose adherance to specific practices are 'akin' to religion.... but it's not _actually_ religion. this might take some explaining - oh dear: i'll try.

the fundamental thing behind transcendental meditation is something that they call 'Natural Law' - i.e. the 'Laws of Nature'. these 'laws' have some fundamental grounding in mathematics - quantum mechanics etc. which i don't pretend to understand - but they 'express' out into things like 'karma', 'gravity', 'intelligence as the unifying force which answers physicists holy grail quest for Grand Unified Theories' and of course 'the practice of repeating a mantra quietly and effortlessly as a means to attune a human psyche in line with the laws of nature - a bit like catching a wave when going surfing'.

it is claimed that the laws of nature can be expressed as mathematical equations, the terms of which can be each be represented by a symbol, which in turn can be 'spoken' directly in sanskrit. further levels of expansion of these mathematical equations into further terms results in further symbols, each of which again can be spoken as a phrase in sanskrit.

ultimately, it is claimed, these mathematical equations express the entire vedic scriptures.

(and if you believe what steven hawking is saying about the black hole memory effect - notice i said 'believe' because you really have to be a rocket scientist to understand steven hawking, otherwise you just have to take his statements at face value - i.e. you have to just trust and believe him. anyway: if you believe what steven hawking is saying about the black hole memory effect, namely that the black hole has a memory of what went into it, but the storage is 'compressed' - it's not so difficult to imagine that there might be a mathematical formula, its terms and the derivatives of its terms so elegant that it can be expressed in an actual spoken language, now, is it?)

anyway.

the point is that there are certain practices - certain ways of living - that fundamentally make humans much better off than they would be without them, and these ways of living are a beautiful expression of humans living in harmony with - and respecting - the Laws of Nature.

it _just_ so happens that many religions - and the adherents to those religions - get it right.

it _just_ so happens that the practitioners of transcendental meditation are _lucky_ enough to have access to someone who actually _understands_ what the hell is going on enough to _explain_ to people where those practices (which some religious adherents get right) happen to come from!

it _just_ so happens that a lot of the practitioners of transcendental meditation happen to _follow_ what their leader is saying is a 'Good Idea' on account of it being 'in tune with the laws of nature'.

consequently, practitioners of transcendental meditation _look_ like over-zealous religious fruitcakes - with their 'sexism' and their 'desire to destroy ancient revered monuments' - but actually for the most part, most of them are simply following the path to enlightenment and respecting the Laws of Nature.

and, due to the times in which we are living, which are pretty damn dark, what with science being the be-all and xxxxing end-all of most arguments - _including_ on wikipedia, where 'that which we can experience' cannot be a 'Point of View' because it is classed as 'Subjective' and 'Un-Scientific', it is perhaps not surprising that TM and its practitioners run flat-out into brick walls, and, rather unexpectedly, steam-roll their way over, round and through what _you_ thought was a brick wall.

so. in short: transcendental meditation isn't a religion, it's a technique. the practice of transcendental meditation encourages you and helps you to achieve the same end-result which religions try to get their followers to stick to. it's all to the same goal - enlightenment - so stop friggin arguing about it and get on with it! :)

lkcl 22sep2006


 * Nice essay. Thank you. Given that you edited the Sthapatya Veda section, maybe you'd like to do a bit more work on it. Would you like to add a well-sourced short paragraph why there's this emphasis on orientation and proportion? Just a little bit of info from one of the web sites. Right now all it says is that it's auspicious. TimidGuy 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

essay? i suppose it is :) i was just getting a bit fed up with seeing so much misinformation, and TM is a deceptively simple topic, from which a heck of a lot stems (and therein lies the confusion).  yeh i'll look something up.  there are a couple of news articles about how sthapadya ved has resulted in brushfires in california PARTING AND REJOINING around even just the _land_ that had had the ceremonies done.  in the reports that i heard about, one plot had its fence singed (wow big deal), and it was the only one which had had a swimming pool built.  the experts in sthapatya ved said that it was because the swimming pool was too close to the boundary of the plot, and also it put the plot out-of-balance.  i.e. if they wanted a damn swimming pool they should have damn well said so when they had the place built, and it could have been taken into account.  duh.  but - yes, really, styapatya ved should really have its own section. Lkcl 02:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

from http://vedicarchitecture.org/ezine/2004_04.html

"...Then, as the fire roared up to the home from the National Forest only 50 feet away, the 40 to 60 mph winds made a sudden 90 degree shift and instantly the fire passed directly outside of the house's Vastu fence. This sudden sift allowed the Worlands to evacuate in safety and, the house and everything in or near the Vastu to be saved. After shifting the blaze away from the house, ten minutes later the wind shifted back to its original direction and consumed the acreage directly behind the home. The fire went on to destroy 3500 homes, and hundreds of thousands of acres of land. But its first would-be victim was spared by a remarkable last minute shift in the wind."

from http://www.maharishi-european-sidhaland.org.uk/News.htm

"... A friend phoned from Ramona, in the midst of the path of the fires..."

"... Another building was in process of being constructed with everything marked out and just the first timbers in place. It had nothing more than a piece of string marking the Vastu fence position. The fires surrounded the place, ate the string, but did not cross that vastu fence line. "


 * LOL* 'ate the string' :) :)

what is sthapatya ved: http://www.ads-vastu.com/whatissthapatyaved.html

hm. finding "official" news sources - ones where the newsreporters go 'duhhhh, we don't understaaaaand what haaaappunnnnd. duhhhh' are proving elusive. i'll have to ask around if anyone has kept any links to online articles. i tried lots of different google searches - couldn't find anything. Lkcl 03:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think just a couple sentences about why we claim Sthapatya Veda more in accord with Natural Law. We probably wouldn't want to include anecdotal evidence such as the fires, but it's great fun to see those reports.


 * arse. there are half a dozen such 'anecdotal' reports.  so... if the world's news services decide that something is not newsworthy, then it cannot possibly be 'official'?  what if the world's news services are being manipulated - or what if the world's news services are not worth listening to or are 'fighting for ratings' or are just... genuinely stupid?  *sigh* once again, wikipedia encourages the bowing and scraping to the lowest-common-denominator of intelligence, instead of to something which is a demonstration (or should i say 'eye-witness anecdotal accounting') of _higher_ intelligence at work... Lkcl 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Here's a thought: Seems like our goal could be to eventually integrate this material into a separate article on Sthapatya Veda. At that point we could try inserting the anecdotal reports and see if people think that it's relevant to an encyclopedia entry.TimidGuy 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder about your paragraph regarding the TM fees for wealthy individuals. I've never heard of that, except for the single anecdote that Maharishi told about something that happened in the 1960s. Do you have some source of info on that? If not, maybe we should delete it. (Of course, I'm only familiar with the U.S., where the fee is pretty well set and doesn't vary according to wealth.) TimidGuy 11:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * timidguy, hi - yehh, you're probably right. there aren't that many wealthy people who want to meditate - so it's not widely known.  what _is_ more widely known is that the cost of TM was been increased dramatically, about.... 5 years ago, for two reasons: 1) to give TM teachers the chance to make a living from teaching TM 2) to cause people to think 'gosh this is expensive and expensive things must be valuable, right, so therefore maybe i should value this'.  that's the underlying reasoning behind the decision to increase the course costs.  that, and raising $USD 108 million to start the peace government (which they managed).  so.  yeh.  let's try to think of something :) oh.  but - what about the 'discounts'?  how to leave that in?  Lkcl 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the point about discounts. Seems like that's good to have. TimidGuy 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to section on Maharishi Effect
In the section TM-Sidhi Program and The Maharishi Effect, there's a seeming criticism when a reporter asks, an 23% reduction in crime compared to what.

This is easily explained, and I propose to add an explanation, based on what the study says. Crime is known to fluctuate widely based on the weather. Had the course been held in October, the crime rate would have fallen -- because it would have been expected to fall anyway. So critics would suggest that the decrease in crime be relative to the decrease already expected.

The course was held in summer, at a time when crime typically shoots up. The prediction was that there would be a decrease relative to the expected rate. And that's what the study showed. TimidGuy 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also propose to add a paragraph addressing the criticism of Park that the Washington DC experiment was a "clinic in data manipulation." I'll cite Maxwell Rainforth's refutation that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer and a longer version that appears online.

I would also like to delete two sentences which have factual errors.

"It took the authors nearly six years to find a journal that would publish the study." The experiment was done in 1993 and the analysis of data was completed in 1994. Whoever wrote this would need to determine when the journal article was completed and the authors began submitting it. It would also need to be determined when it was accepted for publication (often there's a space of 6 months to 2 years between acceptance and publication). But the period in question couldn't be six years, since the study was published in 1999.

"He didn't explain why the United States has increasingly become embroiled in violence and conflict throughout the world[27], even though there are nearly 2000 Sidhas in Fairfield, Iowa alone[28]." The hypothesis is that the effect is created when people practice the TM-Sidhi program together in a large group. There are not 2,000 practicing together as a group in Fairfield. The most recent totals have fluctuated between 1,000-1,250. TimidGuy 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A source is needed for the following:

"What astounded the critics most was the TM researchers' excuse for why Washington D.C.'s murder rate during the study periord had climbed to the highest rate in history. It would have been much higher had the TM meditators not meditated, the researchers explained."

It's hard to believe that the researchers said this. This simple answer is that statistical methods reveal an aggregate truth but don't predict the behavior of individual elements that are part of the aggregate. Murder rate constitutes 3% of the aggregate. In other areas there was a dramatic decline. TimidGuy 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to delete the above sentence. It needs a source for the critics' perspective and for the researchers' response. This point is more properly made in the other Maharishi Effect section with Park's point about the murder rate. I'll post Maxwell Rainforth's reply that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer and that appears online. And as propsed in the other thread, I hope to consolidate these two sections anyway. TimidGuy 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate Maharishi Effect sections
It's odd that there are two sections about the Maharishi effect. There is almost complete redundancy between them. I suggest combining the two sections. And since most of the material in the first instance deals with issues and controveries, I suggest that the best location for the combined section would be in the Issues and Controversies section. TimidGuy 11:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

More apologetics for data manipulation
TG, I reversed many of your changes. I briefly explained them in the edit summaries. I want to comment a bit more here about the bogus Washington DC crime study. You quoted from it, including a nonsensical claim that crime leves can be "accurately" predicted from temperature. That's nonsense. While there's a well-noted increase in crime rates associated with days of hot temperatures, many other things influence violent crime rates. It's nonsensical to claim that one can "accurately predict" violent crime levels by average temperature. And to see just how pathological this TM study and apologetics are, please note how they explained the higher murder rate - they simply discarded 10 murders from their calculations - by calling them a statistical "outlier"!!! That is pure data manipulation. It accounts for why it took Hagelin nearly six years to find journal editors williing to publish this claptrap. Park accurately describes this study and the pseudoscience polemics that followed as a "clinic in data manipulation." Askolnick 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Askolnick. Welcome back. I've taken a very cursory look. liked some of your rewriting. Some changes I didn't understand. Will discuss as I have time. TimidGuy 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there buildings in the Netherlands other than the monastery that they want to tear down? TimidGuy 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Darn, I really should be focusing on my day job. But here I am. Regarding the figure of 18%, I just looked at the source and it says 23%. Here are relevant sentences copied and pasted from the source:


 * "During the 8-week experiment in the summer of 1993, violent crimes against the person (homicides, rapes, and assaults) decreased by 23% and closely tracked the rise in the number of participating meditators. The results were published in Social Indicators Research, a respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journal (Hagelin 1999)." TimidGuy 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand now that the figure of 18% was used at the press conference and the figure of 23% was used in the published study. Here's an explanation from Maxwell Rainforth:


 * "The difference between the two statistics was due to the fact that at the time of the Interim Report [which was presented at the press conference], the final crime data was not available. The Interim Report was based on interim, "radio runs" data from the DC police. The final paper was based on analysis of the final crime data, which is the same data used to to report official crime statistics for the District of Columbia to the FBI. So the correct figure for the crime reduction was 23%, not 18%."


 * Therefore, I guess we can use 18% when referring to the press conference and 23% otherwise. TimidGuy 11:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just one other question at this point: I didn't understand why you deleted the text that I quoted from the Ig Nobel page, since it was properly quoted and sourced. TimidGuy 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Askonick, I don't mean to start an edit war. But I looked at the Park reference and it doesn't seem like we can justify the following sentence that you had reinserted in the article: "It would have been much higher had the TM meditators not meditated, the researchers explained." I believe the sentence in which Park addresses this is his own interpretation of the study, not what the researchers said. Again, I apologize. TimidGuy 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple quotes from Maxwell Rainforth's rebuttal of Park's statement that the research is a "clinic in data manipulation." Also, within the next day or so I want to add the researchers' explanation of why the increased murder rate doesn't contradict the results. TimidGuy 11:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that in the citation given Park is referring to "weekly murder count" and not murder rate. As I understand it, specifying a rate would require a more complex calculation than would specifying a count. I'll try to clarify this in the article. And will revise that sentence so that it's in line with the cited passage. TimidGuy 11:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

David Orme-Johnson on whether crime levels can be predicted
Study coauthor David Orme-Johnson responded to this point. At this time I don't propose to change the article, though, since I feel like the paragraph in question reads well.

Here's what he said:

"The issue is not that crime can be 'accurately' predicted by temperature, but that temperature does have to be taken into account in assessing crime rate change, since it increases during summer months relative to colder months. The prediction of crime from the temperature is not exact, but is a mean value that is bracketed by a measure of deviation, the standard error of the mean. The mean and standard errors of the mean are based on how temperature has affected crime in the past.  If the actual values of crime during an intervention are less than (or more than) two standard errors from the mean, it means that it is highly unlikely that they occurred by chance, given the known effects of temperature on crime. That is, the effect is said to be statistically significant.  That means that given the way in which crime has covariate with temperature in the past, something new and different happened during the intervention. State-of-the-art methodology for assessing the effects of crime was used in this study, and that is why it passed peer review and was published in Social Indicators Research, the leading technical journal in this field. Also, it is quite common for there to be a substantial lag between an experiment and its republication, especially when the research steps outside standard dogma. "It is true that many other factors besides temperature influence crime, such as percentage of the population being males under 30 years old, percent of the population in poverty, population density, percent of the population unemployed, etc. However, these factors do not change appreciably on a day-to-day timescale, and therefore are not relevant to this study. Temperature is the only measure of all factor that change on a daily basis, which is relevant to crime." TimidGuy 11:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with weasel words
The Wikipedia guideline "avoid weasel words" has this to say:

"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

Also:

"Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source."

One of the phrases it advises against using is "critics say that...." I do think this needs to be addressed in the article and propose to give this some attention. TimidGuy 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give some specific examples? If the critics are named and sourced then it is alright to quote them... Sfacets 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Sfacets. Note that there are two instances of this in the lead. In the second instance, for example, I'd like to mention a specific book or journal or academic expert in the sentence about TM being a cult rather than saying "some critics." Then I'd like to balance that by adding a sentence that presents the other point of view. Seems like this would be more in accord with NPOV. It would also address the fact that the usage of "cult" in the lead isn't in accord with the guideline on Words to avoid. The sentence would read something like: "In his book, titled xxx, so and so says that the organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation has characteristics of a cult."

I counted 11 instances of the use of "critics" in the article. In a few cases the usage may be OK, but in many instances it seems like we'd do well to heed the advice of the guideline if we want to create an effective Wikipedia article. TimidGuy 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note this guideline:

"Some/many/most/all/few. Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people? As a rule, ad populum arguments should be avoided as a general means of providing support for a position."

Again, note the use of "some critics" in the lead. TimidGuy 11:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be any way around this. The number of critics are unknown, after all...Sfacets 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline gives quite good advice for how to rewrite these instances and thereby avoid ad populum arguments:

Begin quote: The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts. Consider, for example, this weaselly sentence: "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." Or the equally weaselly, "His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." If a source for the opinion is cited, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability, e.g. "Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'" End quote. TimidGuy 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding to section on "TM-related research"
I've added information at the beginning of this section giving details about the scale of the research. I propose to also add information about more of the studies, including the research published in the last 10 years on cardiovascular disease. TimidGuy 15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

possibly Unreliable sources
Sources such as David Orme Johnson  may or may not be reliable - it would be good if we could get a little more information on the man in question such as what his area of expertise is, and wether he has the credentials required to be cited here. Sfacets 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Sfacets. David received a PhD in psychology from the University of Maryland. He's one of the foremost experts on meditation research in the world. Here's how he describes his qualifications on his web site:


 * "My qualifications for addressing these issues are that I am one of the principal researchers in the world on meditation and its effects, having over 100 publications, mostly in peer-reviewed journals, and I have been asked to review the meditation research on chronic pain and insomnia by a National Institutes of Health Technology Assessment conference, for example. I have traveled to over 56 countries to speak on the research on meditation to scientific conferences, the public, the press, program directors, government officials, members of Congress, parliaments, heads of state, and the United Nations." TimidGuy 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to his professional bio,, he appears to have very impressive credentials. -Will Beback 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see an Administrator here, Will Beback. Thanks much for visiting. I like your username. : )


 * I'm not really happy with the way that I've cited David OJ in the lead, but wanted to do something to present the other point of view. Ultimately I hope that we can come up with a better solution. TimidGuy 00:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Malnak about to hit the fan...
Here's your objecting parent, Andrew. I'm sure there will be a court case at some point:

http://www.marinij.com/ci_4474770 Sparaig 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy
There are a number of instances of redundancy in the article. I fixed one instance by consolidating the two sections on the TM-Sidhi program and the Maharishi Effect. Other instances include repetition of the Canter & Ernst study and repetition of the Rabinoff material. I'd like to consolidate this too. I think I'd like to consolidate all the science-related material into one section with subheads. TimidGuy 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting conjecture that isn't sourced
I've deleted several instances of conjecture or speculation for which no source was provided. Most recently I deleted a sentence that begins with this: "There appears to be an issue hinted at (though not explicitly formulated)."

It seems like this sort of conjecture isn't within Wikipedia guidelines. Statements should be well sourced. This appears to be original research, which isn't allowed. Someone is making inferences and then presenting it as evidence. In those instances where an expert states and opinion and that opinion is well sourced, as with the quotations from Pagels in the article, then it seems appropriate to use this sort of opinion. TimidGuy 11:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
This page has a lot of problem, but for now I'll stick to one. The website "truth about TM" is, fairly obviously, not a reliable source for scientific claims. I'm left with no choice but to doubt the validity of anything verified from only that source. If some of these things are factually accurate then it should be an easy task to find reliable sources from them. Jefffire 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jefffire. Thanks for your contributions. I can't tell you how glad I am that you deleted the cult sentence in the lead. I only hope that opponents of Transcendental Meditation let that deletion stand. I'm also glad you deleted the section on sexism.


 * I wonder why you feel that David Orme-Johnson's site isn't a reliable source, especially since he cites the scientific literature for almost every point that he makes. Note that his site was discussed above and that Administrator Will Beback said that he thought that David's credentials are very impressive. And in one of his Comments, Will referred to David as having "excellent credentials." According to the guidelines, personal web sites of experts can be considered to be reliable sources.


 * It's true, though, that some of that material can be better referenced elsewhere.


 * I also like some of your deletions in the section on religion. And again, I hope that opponents let your deletions stand. Note that I had added information about various public schools teaching TM as a way of showing that the Malnak decision is narrow and that TM continues to be taught in public schools. Maybe I could put those paragraphs back and add a transition to make that clearer.


 * I do agree with you that this page has a lot of problems. I've been trying to fix some of them and have, for example, been dealing with many of the ad populum arguments. TimidGuy 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jefffire, it isn't "fairly obvious" that "truth about TM" is not a relaible website. Please don't remove all of its citations until we've reached a concensus on that point. Can you please explain why you don't think it is reliable? -Will Beback 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is blatently obvious that "Truth about TM" is not a reliable source for scientific facts. It's clearly a highly pro-TM site, which has an agenda to push, the name alone is proof enough of that. To verify scientific facts, please cite scientific sites, or review articles from mainstream peer reviewed journasl. "Truth about TM" is not, nor will it ever be, a reliable source for scientific data, because it is not scientificaly respected. It is however aceptable to cite it for the claims made by various TM groups, but to cite it to verify facts is a clear WP:RS violation. Jefffire 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 1970 over 360 scientists at over 200 independent universities and research institutions from approximately 30 countries have conducted research on the Transcendental Meditation program.
 * The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent more than $21 million funding research on the beneficial effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on heart disease alone
 * A subsequent investigation found that this report was based on a report commissioned by the U.S. Army in 1986. That report, researchers say, was "outdated, incomplete, and was never published, which means that it never went through peer-review—the essence of the scientific process."
 *  Herbert Spector, Ph.D., wrote, "I have noted with some concern and surprise that the recent NRC report on meditation failed to take into account an impressive number of papers, in peer-reviewed journals, published for more than a decade, dealing with physiological changes during meditation. It is not necessary to agree with their results, but it is certainly improper and inappropriate to ignore them or to omit considering them in any review on the subject of meditation.”
 * Meditation researcher David Orme-Johnson says that the fact that this meditation technique has been derived from an ancient tradition in India and revived by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Hindu monk, does not have a bearing on the validity of the practice, just as Einstein's theory of relativity isn't considered Jewish, or genetic theory, developed by Gregor Mendel, a monk, isn't considered to be Christian.
 * According to the web site Flame Out, the mantras or sounds used in TM for Hindus have the meaning of gods. The teaching of the TM-Sidhi Program in the mid-70s, as an advanced meditation program, is based on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
 * Transcendental Meditation has been taught in public schools in recent decades, including the Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse in Detroit and the Fletcher-Johnson Public School in Washington, D.C. Research at the Nataki school has shown that the meditating students were happier, had higher self esteem, and were better able to handle stress.

None of these entries that you deleted appear to be scientific facts. They are general reporting of what others have said or done. -Will Beback 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also said that I doubt the validity of any of the statements made. Since these are factual statements, and not opinions, I would like them verified from independant sources. If they are correct, that should be an easy task. Jefffire 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You claimed that it was being used for scientific statements, but none of these are scientific statements. You assert, without proof, that the sources for these are unreliable. Please give an example of an false fact here to show that the site is, in fact, unreliable. The burden of proof is on you. -Will Beback 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS explicitely states the opposite. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question", this means that it is up to whoever inserted the reference to prove that it is reliable. Jefffire 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Also, are you seriously suggesting that FlameOut is an acceptable source?! Jefffire 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will, for your comments. I agree with you that this should have been discussed befor major deletions were made. I see, Jefffire, that a number of the statements you listed weren't referencing TruthAboutTM


 * It's good to know that you think that in the context you mentioned that it's OK to cite TruthAboutTm.


 * No, I don't think that Flame Out is a reputable source. That and a number of other sources cited in this article by those opposed to Transcendental Meditation are very questionable. I hope we can agree to delete some of them. I've been cautious about doing so out of respect for those who've been contributing to the article over a period of years.


 * I hope we can continue to discuss this as the situation warrants. I do think that David Orme-Johnson is a highly respected researcher and that it may be appropriatei to reference his site in various circumstances. But I'll look for other sources for some of the items.TimidGuy 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof does lie initially on the editor adding the material to provide sources. Sources are required and sources have been provided. If Jefffire wants to challenge those sources it's up to him to come up with some concrete reason why they aren't valid. I'm not aware that any of the assertions are extraordinary or controversial. -Will Beback 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see your point. It was a confusing exchange because you and I were specifically talking about David Orme-Johnson's site, and Jefffire kept referring to other sources. I agree that it would be helpful to have him explain in more detail why he considers some sources not to be reputable.TimidGuy 11:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more explicit, I consider some of these source to be unreliable for "factual" information, and especially scientific information. I am yet to here any reason why TruthaboutTM is a reliable source for such material, and the onus is upon you according to Wikipedia policy. TruthaboutTM blatently has a bias, so I would prefer a site which is unambigously neutral for the material. For example, the statement about the NIH should be sourced from the NIH (preferably), or from an uninvolved party.


 * Thanks, Jefffire, for returning to explain. Yes, Truth About TM has a bias. But the guidelines allow personal sites by experts to be used as a source. I do think you're right that in those instances where the facts can be supported by references to neutral sources, they should be. It's good that you've made that point, and I'm happy to follow your direction in that regard. For now, let's not try resolve any difference of opinion regarding Truth About TM. But in the future when I'd like to use David's site to rebut a point that a neutral source doesn't address, then let's raise the matter again.TimidGuy 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The section about students being happier in schools was removed for the general reason that it was completely irrelevent in the section it was in, other sections were removed as clear undue weight violations, such as the comparason between TM and relativity. Jefffire 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note my argument above -- that it was meant to show that the Malak decision was narrow and that TM is continuing to be taught in schools. You're absolutely right that I shouldn't have mentioned the research on the Nataki School in that context.TimidGuy 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adverse effects
The section on adverse effects really needs to change. It's based soley on singular circumstantial events, and takes up an inordinate amount of space for something that appears to be of very minor importance. A lot of it could be trimmed out, such as what appears to be original research and slight bias. Jefffire 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love it if you'd hack away at it.TimidGuy 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the final paragraph, which seemed pointless.


 * Another problem with this section is that it's hard to present the other point of view since the case is ongoing. Of course the charges and the facts are disputed by the defendents, but at this time I don't think there's anything that can be cited.TimidGuy 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)