Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 2

De escalate
Any chance of editors taking a little break and letting the dust settle on this article. Have a little tea, take it out on unsuspecting small stuffed animals, climb a mountain, play tennis, have dinner... well you get the point... and perhaps come back with cooler vision and less fire. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes! A lovely thought, Olive. Thank you. David spector (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of WP:FRINGE compliance
Just a notice that as with other TM-related articles, many of the references in the entry are not WP:FRINGE compliant, that is they use primary sources for a Fringe topic.

We should work together to remove the non-compliant refs. and remove or edit the corresponding text.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a fringe topic as much a religious/"New Age" one. Either way the article of course needs to rely on secondary sources. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs more acceptable sources. The problem is that they are hard to find because most people are either "outsiders" who have an inaccurate or distorted understanding of the TM movement or "insiders" who know all about it, so don't feel the need to publish. Newspaper reporters tend to take the easiest approach, which is to paste together whatever text they can find that reads as sensible, regardless of pro or con, or else to print an article that was really purpose-written by a TM meditator or teacher. There are few topics in WP for which it is as difficult to find good references. However, neither TM nor the TM movement can be characterized as fringe (in the sense of being pseudoscientific), "new age", or religious. The TM movement is based on the desire to make natural and spontaneous refreshment, joy, and higher states of consciousness available to everyone in the world. It's the same basic desire to improve life that motivates the founders and supporters of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, the United Nations, almost all political parties, and just about any college or university, made in the case of TM very specific to the strengthening of consciousness itself (which improves all activities) rather than solving specific problems. I hope these clarifications help. David spector (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

number of adherents
The most realistic estimate of adherents ("devotees") I can find is "tens of thousands" (Melton Encyclopedia of American Religions, (1993). The "3/4/5 million" estimates probably add up the number of people who have ever taken a TM class or session, as does the "1 million in the US" one. --dab (𒁳) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How have we arrived at the measurement of the "size" of the TMM - devotees Vs. TM practitioners? Press use different terms - which is correct? How to decide? --BwB (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to the earlier discussion on the topic above. --BwB (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's add all of the reputable estimates. In all likelihood, many of them are probably from movement spokespeople or literature even if reported in independent secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why were the estimates removed here? J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar, is a more reputable source than newspapers for a topic like this.   Will Beback    talk    02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Adherents.com has an excellent compilation of estimates of the size of the TMM.page 1, page 2 It's a tertiary source and it's best if we don't cite it directly, but the underlying secondary sources are mostly usable. Our section should reflect the range of numbers provided there.    Will Beback    talk    02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are we rethrashing this topic again? We discussed it earlier and at the time, everyone seemed satisfied with the content.  We also had a lively debate about the use of the word "member", "disciple", "follower", etc.  Now we have introduced a new one - "adhernt".  Can someone please define who/what an "adherent" to the TMM is? --BwB (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to define it. We're just reporting what others have written. Why did you delete Melton's estimate?   Will Beback    talk    16:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

it's as easy as WP:CITE. If the secondary sources collected at our tertiary source (adherents.com) has "adherents" we'll use "adherents". If you have quotable sources to add to this, we can also report their terminology. If you have no secondary sources to present, you don't have a debate. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is correct, the text should reflect the (reliable) source. If different terms are used by different sources, than it may be appropriate to use the word or phrase in quotes and/or identify the source.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In this context, our current source for the high estimate of 5 million adherents is given as

This is not satisfactory. Not only does the article no longer appear to be online, so verification is rather difficult, judging from the title, the article topic is also not the TM movement itself but some report on some bank doing something with their money. The estimate of five million was probably just pulled off some TM website by the journalist. It doesn't compare to our citation of published works with the express purpose of presenting an inventory of new religious movements. Needless to say, the estimate is also rather unrealistic. The highest estimate adherents.com is aware of is the three million of O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993), p 35. --dab (𒁳) 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The FT article is available in Proquest. It concerns the RAAM currency. At the end of the it says, by way of background: "The maharishi, who claims 5m devotees worldwide, rose to prominence in the mid-1960s when the Beatles sat spellbound at his feet." So they are not endorsing the number, just reporting the movement's claim.   Will Beback    talk    18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So the FT does not state TM has 5 million adherents at all, it simply reports that MMY claims to have 5 million followers? I rather crucial point I would say. Interesting how whoever included the FT citation took care to not point this out. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Split: List of TM organizations
An editor has proposed splitting the "Organizations" section into a standalone "List of TM organizations". I think that we could avoid that by shortening the material devoted to organizations which are already the subjects of articles. Several subsections are essentially the first paragraphs of their articles. We could reduce those considerably without losing any information. The schools section has gotten a bit long with material from primary sources, and it could be trimmed a bit too. If the article is still too long then the history section might be a more logical section to split off instead.  Will Beback   talk    11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested: non agreed on split off of content

 * Without agreement a split was just created. I contest this for multiple reasons, the most obvious being that an alternatives was suggested here. Of course the split now weights the cult section unduly, an obvious result of the split.(olive (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree with the split as it give the cult section the weight it deserves per reliable source. these sources needs to be clearly communicated. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So you agree to "weighting" the cult section per your opinion.(olive (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC))


 * See WP:DUE It should be weighted as per reliable sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While this isn't the split that I'd recommended, and while I'm not thrilled by the title of the new article, I don't see a real problem. This article was getting quite long. As for the weight of the "cult" characterizations, it's just one element of the views of the group and we should endeavor to include all the significant views of the group. All of the NRM scholars have written about the TM movement, so we should check to make sure we're using the best scholarship available.   Will Beback    talk    22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree completely that all views should be covered impartially with WP:DUE given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New religious movement?
The very first sentence of this article states (as a fact) that the TM movement is a New religious movement. The article on that phrase states that it is a new alternative to "cult". Common understanding of the phrase implies "a religion" rather than a cult. Both are wrong for TM.

I'm sure this has been discussed on WP talk pages before, but it should be very clear that TM is not (as a technique) religious in the slightest; in fact, it is used by many religious individuals, including priests and rabbis.

Furthermore, even the devotees living in the long-term Mother Divine and Maharishi Purusha courses cannot possibly be called cult members. They don't worship their leader, they don't proselytize, they aren't alienated from their parents and friends, they don't believe the end of the world is coming, they don't believe that mankind will be judged, they don't raise money. All they do is enjoy "celestial bliss 24 hours a day". That is, they spend their time looking within, experiencing pure consciousness as they find it within. They are not studying the 'holy words of their master', they are developing their own awareness, their own consciousness.

If this is religious, it is unrecognizably so, and therefore could only be called that by stretching language to an extreme. And even if these two courses were considered cults or religious, TM instruction itself has no elements of a cult or a religion, other than the puja, which is also a practice in Hinduism but which even WP calls a "ceremony of gratitude" rather than a religious ceremony. Any TM teacher can tell you that it is not religious (unless you call putting your attention on your inner, pure consciousness religious).

There were a total of only roughly two or three court cases that determined that TM was religious within their particular legal contexts; this is hardly conclusive. There is no general consensus among scholars of religion that TM is religious. TM is not taught in even one school of religion.

TM centers are colorfully called "Peace Palaces" and "Centers of Invincibility". So what? It's just flamboyant language, not religion. The TM movement, whether as TM teachers giving an introductory lecture or instruction, or students at MUM courses, or officers in the TM organizations (all the way up to the top, the Rajas) show no trace of cultism or 'faith-based' characteristics. They're all just ordinary folks who believe that TM is essential for a world free from war, greed, and all other disharmony. That makes them believers, not religious.

The current two citations for the first sentence do not establish that either TM or the TM movement is a New religious movement. If no one can find a reliable and clear citation, can we please remove this statement, as well as all the 'Religion' WP tags at the head of the article? David spector (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ample sources which include TM among the groups referred to as "NRMs" or "cults". Whether it actually is one of those is not our concern, as we're just here to summarize reliable sources. This Google books search picks up numerous scholarly books that characterize TM in this way. For example:, , , and    Will Beback    talk    22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting comment here, Will. Could we not apply the same sentiment to your strong push to categorize TM-Sidhi, ME and Yogic flying as "Fringe".  Could we use the view you express here to the Fringe discussion to read "Whether it actually is Fringe is not our concern, as we're just here to summarize reliable sources."? --BwB (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues are not comparable. This thread is discussing what content to put in the article. The issue of characterizing theories as being "fringe" or pseudoscience concerns internal policies which frame the discussion of sources and NPOV.   Will Beback    talk    17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NRM or NSM is an area that is undergoing a fair amount of academic scrutiny and discussion. By no means do sources indicate or should be considered definitive on whether any "body" is an NRM or NSocialM. Chryssides for example says that TM is not religious and implies it may not be a NRM. Second cult" is not a universal synonym for NRM but is a generally considered a pejorative which NRM may not be. Further, because sources call it that doesn’t mean it has to be used in the lead section with Wikipedia’s editorial voice, but rather it needs to be attributed in the body of the article and then accurately summarized in the lead. Right now, it’s firmly stated in the lead in WP’s editorial voice as a definition.  Unless ALL sources say it’s  a NRM, or a vast majority, then it’s incorrectly phrased and placed in the lead. (olive (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * What page of Chryssides are you referring to? On page 278 he says it is connected to a religion. We can certainly add that members of the movement say it is not a religion.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the point. The article defines TMM as an NRM rather than describes TMM in terms of New Religious Movements. The issue is that this is an area that is being discussed and is ongoing. The body of article must describe that accurately and then the lead must if needs be summarize that information. A definition excludes. While the TMM maybe according to some scholars be a NRM it is much more, and that is what must be in the first lines of the lead to this article.(olive (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * If the preponderance of scholars call it a new religious movement, then we are on safe ground using their terminology. What scholars say it is not a religion?   Will Beback    talk    00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You miss the point, again. We can describe it as an NRM but not define it as such.(olive (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * If ten people say that oranges are round, and only one person says it is another shape, then it is reasonable for us to say that oranges are round fruit. Our job is to present the majority view and include minority views. If we were to equivocate on every statement this encyclopedia would be twice as long and four times as hard to read.   Will Beback    talk    00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Round does not define it describes. If you say in the first sentence of a WP lead that an orange is round you are using round to define, and round does not adequately define orange. You can say later in the lead as part of the description that round is part of what describes the orange but a definition must be more overarching than either round or NRM. NRM can be in the lead if there is information in the article on it, but it must come later as a part of what describes TMM not as the article's the editorial definition. (olive (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The Transcendental Meditation movement is a movement, that is axiomatic. It is relatively new, having been formed in the late 1950s. So the only point of contention is whether it is religious in character. If most scholars define it as an NRM, then we can call it an NRM.    Will Beback    talk    01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Per Wikipedia lead we do not just summarize:


 * ''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

''
 * And if we are summarizing the article, there is no mention of NRM in the article, unless it is so small I missed it, in which case why would  it be added to the lead(olive (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC))


 * The lead of an article should start be defining the topic. WP:LEAD says: "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""
 * The answer to "what is the subject"? is "it's a new religious movement". If we'd like to improve the summary in the intro then we should add something about the discussion of the cult allegations.   Will Beback    talk    03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope... that's a limited definition and that's the problem...and you know that. The orange is not just round nor does round say much. I realize you are trying to intimidate me by suggesting we add cult to the lead. The TM articles are being moved towards non-neutrality and NPOV violation, and I note that. (olive (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. You suggested that the intro should better summarize the material in the article. The largest single section is devoted to the cult allegations. David spector wrote, above, that "NRM" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "cult". Reporting that TM has been called a cult does not violate NPOV, and in fact the NPOV policy requires that we include all significant views. I don't see any suggestions for definitions that would better reflect scholarly views of the TMM. Any ideas?   Will Beback    talk    03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying TM is an NRM is a criticism, like David suggested, it can be another word for a “cult”.  So is that how WP defines things, through criticism?  We’re talking not just about the lead, but the very first, opening sentence of the lead – and what that’s saying is “Transcendental Meditation Movement is a cult”.  That’s defining it by a critical pov, in Wikipedia’s editorial voice.  If it’s going to be called it an NRM, then that needs to be attributed and have different placement in the lead. That is not what TMM is.


 * This was an accurate and neutral introductory sentence:

The expression "Transcendental Meditation movement" commonly refers to the programs and organizations developed or inspired by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who is recognized as their founder. Also called "Maharishi's worldwide movement", it includes programs in education, natural medicine, architecture and city planning, and Vedic organic agriculture.(olive (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * What sources would we use for that statement? Where and how should we discuss the cult allegations and the description of the movement as an NRM?   Will Beback    talk    04:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I described an opening sentence not the entire lead. I also attempted to add a lead that contained the points we both had been discussing as a compromised version and that was nuetral, but I see as expected, it has been reverted. (18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

There is even a court verdict declaring TM a religious movement for crying out loud. Just read the article. I am frankly growing tired of the naively obvious filibustering on the part of the TM adherents here on Wikipedia. If you want to tout TM, be my guest, the internet is wide and blogs are free, but don't come to Wikipedia. Whether TM is a "cult" is another matter, because of the intrinsic problems with the term "cult". This has nothing to with TM in particular but applies to every nmr that has been called a cult. Again, the case for TM is exceptionally clear, as we can even cite a monograph that examines TM as the prototypical cult movement, but that classification cannot be objective. It is objective to say that TM is a nrm that has frequently been described as a cult. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the reference to the 1977 court verdict, declaring TM religious practice and consequently stopping its spread into public institutions in the US under the First Amendment, was in the article on the Maharishi but lacking here. It is obviously of central importance to this article, and I have included it. In retrospect, I believe it is fair to say that the 1977 ruling marked the apex in the movement's rise. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify a few points for you. TM/sCI was declared religious within the confines of that court case . However TM is being taught and used in multiple schools around the world as a technique. I suggest you read the Malnak vs Yogi case for a better understanding of the details of that case.There are sources that say TM is religious and those that do  not and frankly your opinion on that is of no concern to me . What is a concern is how that opinion plays out in these articles . So please just source and add content in a neutral way, deal with the edits and not the editors,


 * Cult is a pejorative term. Including pejoratives in a lead is generally frowned on. However, I added the word anyway in efforts to create a compromised version with in context of a discussion  between myself and Will. I opened my version of the lead with a neutral more general statement rather than open with  more exclusive point, and a pejorative . Such an opening is neutral. Opening with a pejorative is not. Chryssides, a scholar in the area of NRM and NSM says:


 * "It is largely the media and the anti-cult movement that have been proactive in defining the scope of the ‘cult scene’. Groups as disparate as the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology, est (Erhard Seminar Training), TM, Promise Keepers, neuro-linguistic programmers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, all attract the media label ‘cultic’. Anti-cultism goes further, and Christian anti-cult organizations have added Unitarian Universalists, Dungeons and Dragons, some forms of alternative medicine, and, most recently, Pokémon (Reachout Trust, 2000). Reading the annals of anti-cult literature, it can often be difficult to see any coherence in the range of movements that are judged to fall within anti-cultism’s remit: the concept ‘cult’ seems to merely encompass a somewhat nebulous cluster of organizations and movements that are simply disliked.''


 * NRM and NSM are terms used by scholars studying this area. What TMM calls itself has no bearing on the academic discussion of those terms. What we have to say about TMM ... Its a movement, its a religion has no bearing on those terms. Note that Chryssides says of TM "There must be something plausibly religious about a movement or organization for it to count as a religion and hence an NRM. One possible suggestion is that religion demands exclusive allegiance: this would ipso facto exclude Scientology, TM and the Soka Gakkai simply on the grounds that they claim compatibility with whatever other religion the practitioner has been following."  I am not arguing the point either way, but simply note that there are no cut and dried definitons on NRM, NSM and whether TM is a religion, and using opinion on what any of those terms means as a reason to enter something in an article, and in a lead just doesn't hold water.(olive (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC))


 * This article isn't about the TM technique. It's about the TM movement. There is a considerable difference between casual TM practitioners and those who have greater involvement, such as teachers, Yogic Flyers, governors, rajas, etc. Second, have we established that NRM is a pejorative term? Note the leads of Unification Church and Sōka Gakkai. Both start "X is a new religious movement..." So clearly it's not a violation to use that formula in an article. That said, since it is a matter of dispute it may be best to move it out of the first line and give it a more nuanced treatment. I don't think the lead you put in was great, but the sentence you added to the end is probably the right general approach. Here's a suggestion for the lead and for the religion sentence:
 * The Transcendental Meditation movement (also "Maharishi's worldwide movement") comprises programs and organizations related to Transcendental Meditation (TM). It was founded in 195X by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
 * The movement has been characterized as a new religious movement and included in lists of cults. However adherents say that it is not religious in nature.
 * I omitted the Neo-Hindu assertion because that hasn't been developed in the article yet. (And might be better in the discussion of religion in the TM article). How does that look?   Will Beback    talk   


 * Thanks for your compromised version. I'm a little concerned the last line is a bit weasely. Do all adherents say its non religious?... Unless we can source that statement its weasel wording I would think...And lists of cults also seems rather general... Is there other wording we could use to say the same thing...(olive (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Littleolive, you need to get this: "let me qualify a few points for you" does nothing. You need independent third party sources. If you have those, present them in a matter-of-fact way and you have got yourself a debate.

If you present an independent third party source saying "however, some adherents dispute the religious nature of the movement", I will be ever so happy to agree to its inclusion. As long as you do not cite any such sources you simply aren't making any sort of point at all.

Nobody suggested that we should describe TM as a "cult" in Wikipedia's voice, because, as you say, "cult" can be considered a pejorative. We can still state that TM has been listed as a cult by people who are into compiling lists of cults. It will be almost impossible to define "cult" in any way and not have TM satisfy the definition because all the hallmark features are there. But if you do not want to accept "cult" as a meaninful term you will obviously not be forced to decide what the term should include.

"New religious movement" is different. We have overwhelming evidence that TM is universally classified as a nrm as a matter of course. Even if you can show that there has been disagreement on this (can you?), there will still be the question of WP:DUE because your voice of disagreement will be in opposition to a rock-solid consensus of practically everybody and will very likely not be lead-worthy. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Version added by Olive
 * Transcendental Meditation movement' refers to the programs and organizations begun in the 1950's founded or inspired by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and includes the Transcendental Meditation technique
 * The movement has been described as a new religious movement and new social movement, as neo Hindu in nature, and has been criticized as a cult.


 * Version suggested by Will Beback as a compromised version to Olive's version
 * The Transcendental Meditation movement (also "Maharishi's worldwide movement") comprises programs and organizations related to Transcendental Meditation (TM). It was founded in 195X by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
 * The movement has been characterized as a new religious movement and included in lists of cults. However adherents say that it is not religious in nature.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)


 * There's several problems with that, which is why I'd suggested something different. First, the "X refers to Y" formulation just makes for extra verbiage. compared to "X is Y". "And includes TM" is pretty weak, since it includes so much more. I suppose we could list the major elements, but that be better in a later sentence in the intro. What sources call it a "new social movement"? Why would we include "neo-Hindu" when we don't mention that in the article? I think we can avoid the loaded term "criticized as" and stick with the more neutral "called", or the variation I suggested: "included in lists of". Finally, regarding talk page comments, the appropriate term is "compromise version". "Compromised version" has a different connotation altogether.   Will Beback    talk    19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if we're going to include a view which members of the movement strenuously disagree with then we should include that disagreement. We have many sources in which members of the movement say it is not religious and, to the best of my knowledge, no current members who say that it is religious. So it seems worthwhile to include that view too. Why wouldn't we?   Will Beback    talk    20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets make a deal ...I won't and don't correct your grammar, and you won't need to correct mine. Seems pretty much a waste of time. Thanks. I am somewhat in the dark as to what is being proposed. Perhaps you could write it out.(olive (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm proposing what I proposed above. I wrote it out once and you copied it again. What isn't clear about it?   Will Beback    talk    20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't sure if your proposal was a change or the same as your first rewrite. Sometimes a visual explanation is easier to "read" for some people(olive (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

There is no way we can claim "adherents say" until and unless we have a third party source we can attribute this to. Who are these adherents? We aren't even sure if there are 50,000 or 5,000,000 of them, consequently it is absolutely impossible to put any claim in their collective mouths without violating WP:OR. And no, "some adherents (see google)" will not do. We either need to cite a notable adherent, by name, or we need to attribute the "view of adherents" to the original research reported in some quotable source. All of this is quite elementary. If we cannot find a quotable third party source making a specific point about TM, chances are Wikipedia doesn't need to make it either. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, "adherents say" is a form of WP:WEASEL unless its attributed. (olive (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
 * We can use "officials" instead, as there are many officials quoted as saying this. Perhaps the Maharishi said it as well. Saying "an official" would give the impression that only one has said it, that's why the plural is better. I'll dig up some cites.    Will Beback    talk    22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And so on. Given what some of these sources say, I think the better wording might be something more like "the movement denies it is a religion."  Will Beback   talk    22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Transcendental Meditation is not a religion or philosophy and does not involve any belief or change in lifestyle.
 * Press release, Maharishi Foundation UK: Transcendental Meditation Helps Women with Breast Cancer, Oct 19, 2009.
 * ''A portion of the profits will enable the National Meditation Centre of Wales, based in Llandaff, Cardiff, to offer training courses in Welsh schools. [..] Centre director Helen Evans said: [..] "It's fantastic because so little is known about transcendental meditation. When people hear it's from the East they assume it's a cult or a religion, which is a shame because it's neither of those things. It's not even a way of life, it's just a technique to enable you to relax and help you cope better with your day."
 * Chill out ... with a little help from some friends; Major gig with ex-Beatles will help children in Welsh schools, Katie Norman. South Wales Echo. Cardiff (UK): Apr 16, 2009. pg. 3
 * Some vocal critics in the US have also called TM a "stealth religion", suggesting that it is rooted in Hinduism and that introducing it into the school system therefore violates church-state separation. In 2006, when the David Lynch Foundation awarded a grant to Terra Linda high school in California, outraged parents compared TM to a cult. One Californian religious group threatened to sue. Supporters of Transcendental Meditation refute these allegations, and point out that the practice pre-dates Hinduism by 5,000 years. They say that it is not a religion or a philosophy; nor does it, as popular mythology suggests, require growing a beard and levitating on a carpet. It is merely a practical brain-calming technique that involves repeating a sound, or mantra.
 * Health: Should our schools teach children to 'dive within'? Lucy Atkins. The Guardian. London (UK): Apr 14, 2009. pg. 18
 * While meditation is part of Hinduism and Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation adherents maintain it is not a religion or philosophy, and is practiced by people of various religions.
 * Paul, Ringo help push for meditation in schools, Robert McCoppin rmccoppin@dailyherald.com. Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Apr 4, 2009. pg. 6
 * TM has vigorously insisted that it is a technique and not a religion.
 * Paul, Ringo and a transcendental proposal Richard C Dujardin. The Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Apr 3, 2009. pg. A.1
 * Its proponents say it is not a religion or a philosophy.
 * National: Meditation courses for problem pupils, Polly Curtis. The Observer. London (UK): Mar 29, 2009. pg. 23
 * The fee-paying Maharishi School in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, has held talks with officials in an attempt to sponsor and run the schools, the Times Educational Supplement reports today. [..] The potential backers claim the technique increases creativity and improves intelligence and insist that it is not religion-based.
 * Ministers consider meditation academies, Graeme Paton Education Editor. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Feb 13, 2009. pg. 2
 * Shirley Boncheff, director of the Brattleboro Transcendental Meditation Center: "The Transcendental Meditation technique does not involve concentration, control of the mind, or change in lifestyle. Nor is it a religion or a philosophy. It is simply a mental technique to remove stress from the mind and body," Dr. Boncheff says.
 * Health Notebook for 9-5-2008, Anonymous. The Brattleboro Reformer. Brattleboro, Vt.: Sep 3, 2008.
 * TM detractors have said the movement is a cult at worst, or a religion at best. But Dr Vicki Broome, who teaches TM, differentiates between religion and spirituality: TM is spiritual but not religious, she says.
 * Putting mind to the fight against crime, Franny Rabkin. Business Day. Johannesburg: Aug 18, 2008. pg. 4
 * [David] Lynch says from his office in Los Angeles. " [..] People think it's a religion, it's mumbo-jumbo, it's a cult. It's none of those things. It's a mental technique that works."
 * David Lynch tours to tout the benefits of Transcendental Meditation in schools, Glenn Gamboa. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: May 1, 2008.
 * The group vehemently denies it is a religion, even taking the issue to court - and losing - in the United States. 
 * Spiritual leader and guru to the Beatles founded Transcendental Meditation, Lilly Koppel. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 7, 2008. pg. S.8

movement scope

 * "it includes programs in education, natural medicine, architecture and city planning, and Vedic organic agriculture."

this is so much hot air. Was this copy-pasted off a TM website? If we are going to report on the movement's scope, will we please do that on the basis of independent third party sources? Thank you.
 * education: fair enough, you are initiated and "educated" in TM. Not what "education" usually means (primary school, secondary school, higher education)


 * natural medicine. This means Ayurveda. If TM is recognized as an authority in Ayurveda by anyone outside TM that is fair enough, but can we have the independent reference for this please, and then call Ayurveda Ayurveda, not "natural medicine".
 * architecture and city planning. Sure, as in "please demolish all your cities and rebuild them, and pay us $15 trillion. Just what we wouuld call "architecture and city planning" in Wikipedia's voice
 * Vedic organic agriculture. It is TM jargon to call everything they do "Vedic". It is not the meaning of the term Vedic (northern India during the early Iron Age) as it is used encyclopedically. Nothing in the Vedas deals with "organic agriculture", except that in the Iron Age all agriculture was "organic" (what is "anorganic agriculture, btw?)

In a nutshell, please let's see the independent references, or we will be obliged to remove the stuff based on TM sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no question that the movement is engaged in education. It has countless entities at all levels.
 * "Natural" medicine is meaningless. We should use "Ayurvedic" or "traditional Indian".
 * "Organic agriculture" has been a feature of promotional literature and investment opportunities, but it isn't clear that it's a significant factor. We don't mention it otherwise so perhaps we should mve this to the body of the article.
 * The intro does not adequately summarize the article, and the article does not fully summarize the movement. The intro won't be right until the article is. But we're making progress.   Will Beback    talk    10:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In my book, education is teaching people to read and write and do sums, and later on to think for themselves (so that, among other things, they will think twice before sumbitting to a guru). As opposed to giving them a mantra and telling them the world will be saved if they keep repeating it. This is not "education" in my book, it is simple religious indoctrination. You cannot read anything published by the Maharishis without seeing the word "Vedic" a dozen times over. Does "education" mean teaching people Vedic Sanksrit and giving them the skills necessary to read the Vedic texts? How many TM disciples have even a passing knowledge of Sanskrit? In what sense do we talk about "education" here? If we can cite an independent, quotable, third party source admitting that the TM movement is engaged in education, that will be fine with me. As long as we do not cite such a source, I reserve the right to be highly skeptical about the claims involving "education". They can give their institutions names containing capital-E Education, that won't mean more than calling things Vedic, it will just be a proper name (l'arbitraire du signe). The truly astounding thing here is not the bizarre nature of the claims involved, but the ability of tens of thousands of people to switch off their brains and tag along. I get this sense of being nonplussed at the behavioral patterns of H. sapiens associated with charismatic leaders every time I read about one of the more bizarre nrms. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see that "in my book" attitude dominating the debate and not the content of the article and Wiki policies. The TMM is engaged in education by owing/operating a university in USA and in India.  There are 1000s of children in Maharishi schools in India.  There TMM educational institutes in many countries of the world.  Many of these institutions are accredited by local authorities. Doctors get continuing ed credit for taking Maharishi Ayurved cources, etc., etc.  We have sources for these points.  What is the issue with saying the TMM is engaged in education? --BwB (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are accredited by local authorities, excellent, cite that fact and you have a case. Just calling something a "University" or "educational" means nothing. Reognition by authorities is a different matter, and will either reflect favourably on the institution, or then again unfavourable on the authority in question, but that will be a judgement left to the reader. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any question that the movement has numerous schools of one form or another. Some are simply schools of meditation, confusingly called universities, which are not accredited and in some cases as probably very small. However they are accredited universities and schools as well, including a vast school system in India. Those schools may focus on TM-related topics, but they purport to give a complete education.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, they have schools in India. I retract the doubt pertaining to "education", but the problem is solved in any case. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Move text to MMY article
The following text seems not to bout TMM and should be moved to MMY article.
 * "Following the Beatles, celebrities rushed to be associated with the Maharishi, initiates including Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Kurt Vonnegut and Vidal Sassoon. Because of his involvement with many wealthy celebrities, the Maharishi began to be ridiculed for the display of his love of luxury, such as his habit of touring in a Rolls-Royce, and his business acumen. Alexis Mardas, head of the Beatles' Apple Electronics, noted the luxurious infrastructure at the Rishikesh ashram. Neil Aspinall, the Beatles' road manager, recalled his opinion that "This guy knows more about making deals than I do. He's really into scoring, the Maharishi". Private Eye ridiculed the guru with a character named "Veririchi Lottsa Money Yogi Bear". The Maharishi was also parodied by comedians Bill Dana and Joey Forman in the 1968 comedy album "The Mashuganisi Yogi", and by comedian Mike Myers in the movie The Love Guru[25] and in the character "Guru Maharishi Yogi" featured in the BBC sketch Goodness Gracious Me.[26]" --BwB (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it was copied from the MMY article. I've trimmed that and the paragraph about The Beatles. The history is far from complete, but those details are better kept in other articles.   Will Beback    talk    17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is "not about the TMM" to note that the TMM first became notable when lots of 1960s celebrities became initiated? Please. This is the movement's main claim to notability and the reason for its meteoric growth over the 1970s. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the celebrities are part of the history of the movement, but folks who simply took TM classes are only barely part of the movement so their names and details are better kept in other articles. Some celebrities, for example Donovan or Andy Kaufman IIRC, went further and became TM instructors and they might be relevant here. It's possible that we should move the history of TM from that article to here or a separate article to consolidate the material and avoid duplication.   Will Beback    talk    23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation
I'm proposing that we merge Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation into this article. It's questionable whether MVED is notable enough for an article of its own because none of the sources in the article are primarily about the MVED, and most simply mention it in passing. Much of the material in the article is redundant with material already here.  Will Beback   talk    21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Fladrif (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) arguable, but it might also be considered merging all Fairfield items into Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure merging all Fairfield items into MVC is the right approach. There is a wiki article on FF that is more than the TMM connection and perhaps deserves a article in it's own right.  FF is not just a TMM city. --BwB (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * when I say "Fairfield items" I mean of course "all the TM bodies located in Fairfield". I am not talking about Fairfield the article on Fairfield, Iowa as a town. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the "Fairfield/MVC/Vlodrop/etc" article. Let's not be overly precise. Many of these entities have presences in various locations. Each entity in each country doesn't need an article. MVED is a relatively small component so a couple of lines or paragraphs here should suffice.    Will Beback    talk    11:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Support: MVED is not notable enough to have its own article. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to the article split, the new target for the merge is Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement. We might as well keep the discussion here though.    Will Beback    talk    22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the merger to "Orgs assoc with TM"-- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Characterizations
These sections should be higher up in the article to provide balance rather than denigrated to the end as done here . Doc James (talk contribs · email) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why per Wikipedia?(olive (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC))


 * See WP:DUE "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The important third party comments on the organization have been placed at the very end which equals poor prominence of placement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of these characterizations should be moved out of the ghetto section and woven into the text. If we have a description of the movement from official quarters, then that's a good place to add different views.   Will Beback    talk    02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree mainstream views should be through out the text. The devision of the article into people who support the movement with a small section at the end of those who disagree is bad form.  Moving the a section on characterizations up I hope would address some of this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Think Will's idea is better than Doc's. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the "characterization" (which boils down to "is it a 'cult'?") stuff belongs before "history". The problem with this article is that it is burdened down with the "list of TM organizations" cruft, which could well be exported. As for the "cult" question, it is WP:DUE to state, up front in the lead, that TM is almost universally considered the prototypical cult movement, complete with guru and a multinational money-making apparatus, but that this is, of course, controversial (as always with the c-word). --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * now split to Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement, also the new merge target of Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. With the sterile listing of institutions gone, this article begins to look positively satisfactory. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to see how these article have evolved. Not so long ago, this article was created to be a summary of all the programs and organizations associated with TM, so the TMM article was born.  Now we have another article titled "Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement".  Are the editors who pushed for the TMM article happy with this new development? --BwB (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for the creation of this article was to hold material that referred to the organization rather than the technique, such as the cult characterizations that some editors wanted to deleted from the TM article. The split doesn't affect that.    Will Beback    talk    21:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * indeed. If people insist that "TM" is the technique, not the nrm, we obviously need an article on the nrm itself. Now the TMM article was being blown out of proportion by listcruft of the countless organizations MMY kept founding, so it is only straightforward to create WP:SS sub-articles.
 * there is a difference between splitting an article on grounds of differences in scope, and branching sub-articles based on WP:SS, for simple reasons of presentation. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

History overview
I am a littel confused with the new text in this section (Text below). We have a statement that Wallis has "identified four phases in the development of the TMM", but then the next sentence "Spiritual-Mystical Period" by Woodrum". The ref for this section is a book bt Wallis. What is the connection between Wallis and Woodrum?  Can someone please clarify this section?  Thanks? --BwB (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Roy Wallis identified four phases in the development of the Transcendental Meditation Movement. The first, called the "Spiritual-Mystical Period" by Eric Woodrum, from 1959 to 1965, identified Transcendental Meditation as the primary component of a wholistic approach to spiritual evolution, detachment from the material world and the achievement of nirvana. The second period, which Woodrum called the "Voguish, Self-Sufficiency Period" by Woodrum, from 1966 to 1969, saw a rapid expansion of the Movement through identification with the counter-culture, and a significant modification of the prior Hindu understanding of the goals and effects of Transcendental Meditation. The third phase, from 1970 through 1977, Woodrum called the "Secularized, Popular Religious Phase", during which the Movement identified practical, material and social benefits of TM, with virtually no references to non-worldly considerations.  Wallis writes that this de-emphasis of religious rhetoric and style, except among its inner core of followers, was acknowledge by former TM Movement official Robery McCutcheon. Since the late 1970's, however, the Movement has reversed course, introducing programs such as TM-Sidhi, which are claimed to enable its practitioners to exercise occult powers.Wallis, Ray, ''The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life", Taylor & Francis, 1984 ISBN 0710098901, 9780710098900, p. 90

perhaps you could consider consulting the reference given? Woodrum (1977) identified three phases (obviously, up to the publication date of 1977). Wallis (1984) is citing Woodrum, and adding a fourth phase. Sometimes it really helps to actually read the paragraph you want to criticize. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply pointing out that the text did not seem to match the ref. I see someone has fixed that now. --BwB (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * no, you have taken to wikilawyering and WP:POINT. If you keep trying to inflate trivialities into "issues" people will stop listening to you at some point. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
It has been characterized as a pseudoscience therefore not sure why this was removed? It is referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the lede was to summarize the article? I could not find any discussion of TMM being a pseudoscience in the article, and not wanting it to violate any Wiki policies, I removed it.  I remember there used to be a sentence in the article about Sagan's characterization, but that was about TM and moved to the TM article, I believe. --BwB (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The ref was about TM and the TM movement. We can read add it to both the lead and down below than.  Would that solve your concerns? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to say that the movement has been called pseudoscience. It'd be more logical to say it promotes pseudoscience, or something like that.   Will Beback    talk    21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes agree that might be more technically correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does the source say? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are various sources possible for this. Sagan is the one we're using now. He says TM is "perhaps the most recent successful global pseudoscience".   Will Beback    talk    22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would make sense to distinguish the pseudoscientific claim from the TM practice. A meditation technique cannot be pseudoscience, as it doesn't pretend to be science. "Studies" of the technique which involve claims on the technique's effects otoh can very much be pseoudoscience, because they purport to be scientific studies of the technique. The studies published by the TM movement in support of their meditation techniques do very much and very obviously qualify as pseudoscience, I do not think there can be any dispute about that. The question is whether the movement is primarily characterized by the pseudoscientific studies, by its nature as a sect arranged around a charismatic leader, or its spiritual practices. In any case the pseudoscience is just one aspects, although a notable and characteristic one, of the TM movement.

My point is that we should not say the TM movement "is" pseudoscience, we should say it publishes pseudoscience. The pseudoscience is not in the Maharishis usage of terms like "Science" and "Technology", which is simply cargo-cult adoption of western terminology to replace Sanskrit terminology in Vedanta, designed to appeal to his western audience. The founder did not need to understand the terms "science" or "technology" in order to adopt them (although doubt is cast on his innocence in this respect by the claim that he graduated in physics in his youth). The actual pseudoscience lies in the claims of "we have established the Maharishi Effect in peer-reviewed publications". --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we not bound by Wiki policy to have text that reflects the source? We cannot say "publishes pseudoscience" if that is not what Sagan said. Will has provide the quote from Saga above. --BwB (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The TMM teaches TM rather than "publishing" it.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We also are not to use the exact same wording or that may infringe on copyright. We are to take the meaning and rephrase it in our own words. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither can we put words in his mouth to support a particular POV. --BwB (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BwB, this is silly. We need to reflect the gist of our sources, we do not need to slavishly stick to their verbiage. If you have a bona fide complaint that a source is being misrepresented, that's fine, but here you are just trying to muddy the water. Sagan is referring to the pseudoscientific claims made by TM exponents. In publications. Chanting a mantra is not pseudoscience. Publishing claims that square roots of people chanting mantras are reducing crime rate is. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The TM movement promotes pseudoscience in the form of Vedic Science, the idea that old religious texts are actually scientific. I've read quotes from Nanda Meera on this. TM promotes pseudoscience in it's emphasis on "pure (or transcendental) consciousness" which it claims to contact through it's practice which it claims is the unified field. It also claims to create quantum field effects, as does the TM-SP. Maharishi Ayurveda also uses quantum mysticism (as do most of the TM-related practices). MUM teaches quantum mysticism and it is required of all students. I could go on, but you get the point.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note
I see text has been split off of this article most recently without any discussion leaving the article largely pejorative in tone and obviously in violation of WP:NPOV. I have some responsibilities in real life I have to deal with right now so can't spend much time with this, but will be able to dig more deeply into this concern in a short time. (olive (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC))


 * do you mean the huge listing of TM organizations? Which even as a standalone article has 40k? That's not POV, that's WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

comma to period
not an extremely sincere edit summary, sir. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that folks. My mistake.--BwB (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maharishis' interests
In the lede we have "..movement is being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[8]" Since MMY is no longer alive, can we say that the TMM is promoting his personal interests? --BwB (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed to pass tense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote is taken out of context anyway and it is used disingeniously in the lead. McTaggart said "the TMM has been ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests but there is nevertheless [I, McTaggart, belive] evidence for the 'Maharishi Effect'", she wasn't voicing "concern" at all, she was stating the obvious and asking people to look beyond that. --dab (𒁳) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please fix the wording and add it back to an appropriate location?   Will Beback    talk    22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

it is not a matter of "fixing the wording", the point is that the source cited cannot be used to support the statement made. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source implies that many people feel the Maharishi used TM for his only personal interests ( money, power, and sex ). The passage supports this.  The facts are TM made him very rich, very powerful, and there are statements that he used it to get sex.  You state she was stating the obvious.  Why should we too not state the obvious? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

fair enough. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote from Taggart is out of context and furthermore says that the TM movement was ridiculed for it it. If we want to use this quote as a source the reader needs to know the context and the source. This can be done in the reception section but it is not appropriate for the lead. I agree with Dab "The quote is taken out of context anyway and it is used disingeniously in the lead". Doc's rationale that it states the obvious is nothing more than talk page OR and is not a basis for its usage.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * TMM is connected to the Maharishi's personal interest. Many refs comment on this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

well, Jmh649 is correct in stating that the quote substantiates that the TM movement has been ridiculed because of its guru cult. The fact that the quote is from a source that is actually sympathetic to TM only adds weight to the substantiation of that point. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote is used out of context .... and we've had this discussion before...Either use the whole statement or don't use it at all, but using parts of the text in the source to prove a POV,  for example that the TM movement has been ridiculed because of its guru cult, is poor use of sources and  questionable research methodology.(olive (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Perhaps it would make the sentence more neutral if you indicated specifically "the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interest in Vedic science?--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't in the source, but thanks for the suggestion. We have to cite the source accurately or not use it. (olive (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Saved content fromTM technique article
Bainbridge:
 * "Going on to note that TM is an example of a "missionary" religious group which distills the essence of its own religious traditions to make itself more acceptable to its intended audience."