Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 3

Locations
Why was a {fact} tag added to this sentence? The assertions don't appear at all controversial and every individual article gives the locations of the organizations. It's not necessary to cite ever single sentence of an article.  Will Beback   talk    21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * TM institutions located in either Maharishi Vedic City or Fairfield, Iowa, include the Global Country of World Peace (GCWP), the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED) and the David Lynch Foundation For Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace and the Maharishi University of Management (MUM) and the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment (MSAE). 
 * Good point, Will. Let's remove the tag. --BwB (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Source and applicability
Kala's recent addition to the cult section isn't about cult as far as I can see, and the source looks like a primary source which I can't seem to access to check the content added. The addition should, probably be removed unless we can find a compliant secondary source. (olive (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes it does look like a primary source. --BwB (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

 * In 2007, a TM movement insider released a large number of movement documents to the whistleblower repository Wikileaks . Part of the documentation exposed an organized and coordinated effort to undermine critical examination of the Transcendental meditation movement, including references on the WWW. These efforts also involved targeting comment sections of web pages related to TM movement press releases, whereby TM supporters would insert salutary comments to make it look as if the articles had exaggerated and widespread acceptance by the public.

The most recent discussion of Wikileaks at the RSN is here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_45, but it is not definitive. The feeling there seems to be that it is probably a reliable source for primary documents, but that some mention in a secondary source would help establish the reliability and notability of the material. Do we know of any secondary sources that mention these documents? PS: Wikileaks ius temporarily down due to funding issues, however the Google cache of the relevant page is still accessible. I downloaded the materials before the site went down, in case anyone wants copies.  Will Beback   talk    23:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that they Wikileaks material is discussed here: "Lies, Levitation, and Defamations Most Foul", THE PROCESS IS…. That appears to be a group blog which probably doesn't count as a reliable secondary source.   Will Beback    talk    23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think this is the poor guy who had a 'threat to sue' letter sent to him by MUM/TM movement attorney Lenny Goldstein.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although they describe it as a blog it is actually the Process's Official website (or as official as you would expect The Process to be), I would suspect that if we are allowing one personal website of a published "independently published" "expert" then I don't see an issue with the process is... as a secondary source.  Tucker talk 02:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize it was connected to a larger entity. Now that I search I see that there is even a WP article on The Process (collective). While he hasn't merited a WP bio yet, Doug Messner appears to be a Gonzo journalist. Still, it's a judgment call. If in doubt, check with the WP:RSN.   Will Beback    talk    06:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a blogg to me. --BwB (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * {http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm} Looks like a self published personal website from a member of the M MovementPand who is still paid to teach it [] to me.  Tucker talk 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Truth About TM" is TM apologist David Orme-Johnson's blog.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would seem that way. Strange how BWB, et al; never argue for it to be removed from any TM article as they do for all other such blogs  Tucker talk 02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All such references to David O-J's blog should be seen as blatantly primary sources, as David O-J is not only an affiliate of MUM.edu, a TM teacher but also a TM researcher, in addition to his prominent role as a TM apologist.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I would appreciate a copy of the Wikileaks docs if you're able to email it or provide a link via my WP email address, which is active.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wiki does allow primary sources. If editors agree, then we can use DOJ or this Wikileaks page.  --BwB (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is here: WP:PSTS. Primary sources may be used under some circumstances, with care.    Will Beback    talk    20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Denver
''While googling Clint Eastwood (a long story but have just watched Pale Rider) I came across the following. It is found in a blog but the origin, as can be seen, is in a reliable source. I thought it might be of interest.''  Tucker talk 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15606/plan-for-transcendental-meditation-capital-has-kansas-farm-town-on-edge

Plan for Transcendental Meditation capital has Kansas farm town on edge

Denver Post, USA Aug. 13, 2006 Michael Riley www.denverpost.com

Smith Center, Kan. – A couple of minutes with the morning coffee klatch at the Second Cup Cafe is all it takes to get a feel for how these locals see plans by a global meditation empire to build a utopian city just north of town.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [I've snipped the rest of the text to avoid copyright issues.   Will Beback    talk    06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)]


 * There's 12-20 articles about the Smith Center project, including an 1800-word article n the Denver Post, shorter articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Omaha World - Herald, and at least three articles in the local Salina Journal. One from April 2009 said that one Peace Palace there is nearly complete and second is also being constructed. It's certainly a notable topic. However It might be best to include it mostly in Global Country of World Peace, with perhaps a short summary here.   Will Beback    talk    07:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not here? --BwB (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's been announced that Smith Center will be the future "World Capital of Peace", that article seems like a closer fit. But we can certainly also include a mention here.   Will Beback    talk    11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry, I really don't look at the other articles (and not really this one in any detail) but if it can be used anywhere well, I have been of some use. I am always saddened at the distruction of local communities and this seemed an interesting example of one in development.  Tucker talk 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was already some material on it, and I've expanded it at Global Country of World Peace. I don't see any obvious place to add anything about it either in this article or in TM organizations. So far as I can find sources, we don't even know if they've finished any buildings or if there are any TM-related residents there.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Group
I've drafted an article about the Maharishi Group, at User:Will Beback/Sandbox 3. Feel free to post any comments at Talk:Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement before it's posted.  Will Beback   talk    06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Characterization
It does take a few minutes to start the thread....I saw that I'd accidentally deleted content from another article so rushed over there to deal with that first...

I've removed cult or sect because the section also discusses how the org is not a cult or sect, and per NPOV should probably have more such content if its available. So the heading was not accurate. As well, per Wp, we might want to consider integrating this content into the article. I'll adjust the heading again now that there is a thread. I won't revert it if there is a concern.(olive (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * You've called it the "cult section" on this very page. The section does concern the characterizations of the movement as a cult or a sect, so the heading was accurate. Let's add more content if that's available. We might also split the section as its getting long, if we can find a logical way of doing that. I'll restore the heading that's been there since January.   Will Beback    talk    16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've called it "cult section" on this page? Nope. The heading implies that the org is a cult or sect which biases the reader, and, the section itself also has content which indicates the org is not a cult or sect. How is that accurate, and how is that NPOV? If something isn't neutral or accurate how long its been in place is not a consideration. If this were a policy page considerations might be different. What is your objection to integrating the content into the article? Or do you have any objections?(olive (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Check the search function of your browser. You've called it that several times. As for the accuracy, what other kinds of characterizations are there in this section? It seems to mostly concern characterizations of the movement as a cult or a sect. Of course it has various views on that matter, per NPOV. I don't know where you'd "integrate" the material to in this article, but I object to anything that waters down this material.   Will Beback    talk    16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the last paragraph could be split off into something like a "public relations" section.   Will Beback    talk    17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah.. You mean earlier on in other discussions. Maybe so... At any rate, how else would one discuss the section here with out naming it...So can I assume you think the section is neutral and correctly weighted per NPOV of the article, and that the content in the section is neutral per the sources? What do you mean by watering down?(olive (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * We're discussing the heading, not the neutrality of the contents. The only part that contains denials is the Orme-Johnson paragraph. I'm sure we could find another spokesman or defender, but frankly I haven't done a close review of the sources and summaries in this section so I can't say for sure if it's properly weighted and neutral. What do you mean by "integrating" this material into the article? Can you give an example ofwhat would be integrated where?   Will Beback    talk    17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't discuss the heading without the content, and I am responding to your concerns about watering this down. This is big topic, and I want to get to another article today and have other RL things to take care of, but I think we could use a good discussion on this ....so tomorrow if you're around.(olive (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * It doesn't necessarily matter to the heading if the material is balanced and properly reflects sources, unless correcting those errors would result in wholesale changes. In this case, even if we add or subtract material the basic focus is the same. Since it describe the contents accurately (the text discusses characterizations of the movement as a cult or a sect) I'm going to restore the heading. I look forward to hearing about your "integration" ideas.    Will Beback    talk    20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing specific at this point, but something to consider:WP:Structure/section:Article structure.(olive (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * One thing to note at WP:STRUCTURE is that it discourages splitting sections into competing POVs. Thus it would be incorrect to have segregated sections for material that characterizes the movement as a cult or sect and for material which denies that view. Instead, both views are treated together. So I think we're broadly in compliance.   Will Beback    talk    22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal
See Talk:Transcendental Meditation, which concerns this article.  Will Beback   talk    07:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment there, but I am not in favor of Will's proposal as presented on TM talk page. I think the "history" section of the TMM and TM articles should remain separate and focused on the main thrust of the articles - the TM technique, and the TM organization. --BwB (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What is being said here?
In the lede, we have the sentence "TM was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi beginning in the 1950s, including various programs and organizations developed or inspired by the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) introduced by the founder.[2][3]" What are we trying to say here. I have attempted to reword the sentence, but if I have got it wrong, please let me know. --BwB (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for this?
I have been trying to find a source for the sentence "Certain TM Movement organizations have obtained tax exempt status; others have had tax exempt status denied." especially in relation to the latter part of the sentence, but I was unable to find one. Can anyone help? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Luke, here is the text and refs from the TM article that could be used to flesh out the text about tax exempt status -
 * "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, the organization which oversees teaching TM in the U.S., is non-profit and tax exempt. Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council) in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations. "  --BwB (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems Maharishi Spiritual Center does hold tax exempt status, see here: http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Corp.aspx?PitemId=4960155. and the Dept of State does not show any denial of such status. Also, Rick Ross is a blog site as far as I can tell and thus not a reliable reference. Should this be removed? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary sources should not be used for things like this, except as support or illustration of assertions already found in secondary sources. That said, I don't see anything about tax exemption on that page. As for the Ross site, you should know better than that by now. The source is the Mountain Times, not Ross. We should not have a convenience link to material that appear likely to violate copyright, but we don't need to have a link in order to cite a source. If you think that the Mountain Times is not a reliable source then that's a separate question.   Will Beback    talk    01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Maharishi Spiritual Center does not have tax exempt status. The Mountain Times article reproduced on Ross's site accurately reported that the NC Supreme Court reversed the NC Court of Appeals, and affirmed the denial of tax-exempt status by the NC Property Tax Commission. What was filed with the NC Sec of State by the corporation is irrelevant, and is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. It is not a tax exempt entity in North Carolina per the NC Supreme Court. Fladrif (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your posting, Fladrif, yet I also see that the Corporation is currently non profit and active . Therefore this should be straightened out. Can someone please research this?  Also Will, you are totally right, the link should be to the Mountain Times, not Rick Ross. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the state of NC considers SCA at present, to be tax exempt. What is are the dates for the Mountain Times article and court rulings? If we have conflicting sources then we need to find a way to represent them both in the article without confusing the reader. What we can't do is ignore one source based on our personal opinion as one editor has implied in his comments.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's dangerous to rely on primary sources like this. It may be that there are different kinds of tax exempts, and different taxing agencies. It appears that the issue with the NC property concerned property taxes and the issue was mostly in the hands of county officials. The state officials are probably more concerned with income taxes. We don't have enough information to tell. We should rely mainly on secondary sources, and only use primary source for illustrations or details.   Will Beback    talk    20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Will is right, and thus the initial sentence is incorrect. The Spiritual Center of America is properly a 501(C)(3) non profit tax exempt organization of the purpose of income tax. Thus it is correctly shownto be a nonprofit by the NC Secretary of State. It not however, considered non -profit for the purpose of property taxes, which is not an unusual situation for charitable organization. However this does not mean the the Spiritual Center is not tax exempt, so the statement needs to be amended to reflect that.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to suggest that the entire sentence on profit/non-profit be removed from the lead. These topic can be covered in the body of the article if needed but it is a minor point in a very long article and does not belong in the lead, especially given the controversy and nuances of the situation as described above.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I went back and looked at the lede to see the effect. The sentence, besides being inaccurate,  does not belong there, because the issue is marginal. I'd like it removed or at least moved. I am not even sure what purpose is served by having a section on the non profit status of certain institutions. If it is to provide information, it can be put in the body of the article later. If it is to  show that some institutions have had their status revoked, it is inaccurate and should either be removed or reported correctly.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement is accurate according to the sources we have. The SOS site can't be used as a source. If there are other reliable secondary sources let's add those. But let's not delete material just because we disagree with it.   Will Beback    talk    22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will 's point is true: we should not remove something just because we don't like what it says. However, the source says the court ruled the Spiritual Center was not a property tax-exempt educational institution. It does not say that the Spiritual Center is not tax exempt. Indeed, the Spiritual Center remains a tax exempt non profit institution in regards to income tax and charitable donations. The ruling is limited to property taxes. Therefore the appropriate changes should be made. In addition the source should be the proper newspaper article, not someone's blog. And, again Keitbob does make a good point: the lede is probably not the best place for such a minor point.


 * I am also not sure that the SOS site can't be used as a source, it is a published report on a finding by the Secretary of State, that the entity is tax exempt, thus not a primary source. But, in any case, both the secretary of state and the Mountain Times assert that the Spiritual Center is a tax exempt non profit institution, so there is no conflict. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source: http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Corp.aspx?PitemId=4960155. These are secondary sources: Winston-SalemJournal and Mountain Times. If there's any doubt about this distinction then we should ask for outside input.   Will Beback    talk    03:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not particularly matter in this case since they all say that SC is a tax exempt non profit institution in regards to income tax and charitable donations. However, the papers also say that SC is not exempt from property taxes, I don't think anyone will object to the text being adjusted to accurately report this information. It can be sourced to any proper source you prefer.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object to changes so long as we use reliable secondary sources and we don't delete relevant material.   Will Beback    talk    04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The NC SOS site is most assuredly NOT a published report of a finding by the SOS. It is simply the filings made by the corporation. I have no idea how meticulous the NC SOS is about reviewing filings made with it; there is an old saying about government agencies where you have to file or record documents: If you pay the filing fee, they'll let you record a restaurant menu. This is the danger in using primary sources, particulary when one doesn't understand what the source is and what it actually means. What is incontrovertible is that the NC Supreme Court ruled that the corporation is not eligible for tax exempt status in the state, on the basis that it did not qualify as an educational institution. The article correctly, accurately and appropriately reflects that. Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the article explains that the ruling of the courts is limited to property taxes only. It does not revoke the SC's tax exempt status as a whole. The article states:  Although the Spiritual Center is a 501(c )(3) nonprofit and exempt from a number of taxes, its nonprofit status does not automatically confer exemption from property tax. Therefore, stating that the SC's tax exempt status was revoked is incorrect. SC is a charitable corporation, exempt from income tax, and elegible for donations. According to the IRS (501)(c)(3) organizations are organized for exempt purposes defined as are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.. Organizations deemed to be (501)(c)(3)are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. SC remains the (501)(c)(3) corporation. No source states otherwise. I also suspect the Secretary of State's office would hardly agree with Fladrif that they accept any filings without any kind of oversight as long as "you pay the filing fee". But this is besides the point, since, as I stated before, both the Secretary of State and the Mountain Times agree on the SC's tax exempt status.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The NC Heavenly Mountain saga is interesting, but it isn't the only element in the movement. Another part of the movement, KSCI, explicity switched from non-profit to for-profit. In light of that and to avoid the negative word "denied", I've altered the text to be a bit more general: I think it wouldn't be controversial to say that most TM organizations are non-profit, based on the entities we discuss in the article. "Certain" implies it's a minority. Any objection to making that change as well?  Will Beback   talk    23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Certain TM Movement organizations have obtained tax exempt status while others have not qualified or have been for-profit enterprises.
 * Some for-profit companies include Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Corp and Maharishi Ayurvedic Products Inc. KSCI started out non-profit, but then decide to become for-profit before eventually leaving the movement.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have stated before, there is absolutely no reason why any mention of this topic should be in the lead. It is a very minor detail in this article. Secondly, we should specifically state the facts per the sources, in the body of the article. Mentioning the specific organizations and the specific types of tax exempt status that have been granted and denied. The sentence: "Certain TM Movement organizations have obtained tax exempt status while others have not qualified or have been for-profit enterprises." is not an acceptable sentence even in the body of the article as it is vague and creates unnecessary implications. Furthermore if we are going to mention/list the orgs that were denied status, then we should also list all those that received it.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it's unacceptable to somehow indicate in the intro that the movement has had both non-profit and for-profit entities. That distinction is fundamental to a corporation's operations. I think the current sentence is a bit clumsy, but it's a relevant issue.   Will Beback    talk    21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a technique. Whether the the business aspect of the technique is sop significant inn terms of the technique is debateable. This content might be better suited to the TM Movement article if at all.(olive (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Er, check the title again....   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * D

D'oh...LOL.(olive (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Whichever place it goes, it needs to be accurate. It also needs to be properly sourced. I think we are all in agreement with this. To that end, I think the proposed new wording is still a bit inaccurate, Will. Since, as you say yourself, 'most' of the organizations in questions do have non-profit status, I think it would be appropriate to say 'most', or a term of the sort (you may already proposed this, it is a little unclear). Regarding 'certain' organizations having had non profit status denied, if I am not mistaken you mention  only one (SC, as we have seen, does not fall into that category). Therefore, again, the term 'certain' is broad and inconclusive. In addition, regarding organizations having for-profit status, while you may be correct, it has to be sourced. And, of course, we also need a source for the non-profit status denial. Finally, I do not know whether you wish to still use the Mountain Times article for some purpose(it cannot be used to prove denial of non-profit status), but if you do, it needs to be sourced directly to the paper, not Rick Ross's blog  site.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-written it and added two sources, one each for KSCI and MAPI.   Will Beback    talk    10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. It looks a lot more accurate now.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Explain this edit
Explain this edit: KBob changed the wording of the text, claiming it is not supported by the source, and simultaneously added a tag demanding a quote. If you didn't have the quote in front of you, how can you change the text claiming it is unsupported by the source? The original language adheres to the source (Gurus in America, p 78); the changes KBob made do not accurately reflect the source. Fladrif (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the text and the ref. This statement needs to be attributed to the author as no other reference is given for the text. --BwB (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an explanation and your reworking introduces bias in violation of WP:SAY We don't attribute statements of fact - we attribute opinions. The source is clearly correct, as there many lengthy discussions threads on boards such as Fairfield Life discussing this very fact. It is quite obviously common knowledge in Fairfield that one will be ostracized from the domes for attending such events. The reworking suggests, and not subtly, that one should doubt the source when there is no reason for doubt. Fladrif (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am simply saying that the author is expressing these views without reference and therefore we need to attribute this statement to the author. What is discussed on blogg site is another matter not relevant to this reference. --BwB (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict
 * The words are directly attributable to the source so they are appropriate otherwise they would be considered weasel words. A local blog is not a reason to add the content while the source is. In fact, Fairfield LIfe is only one opinion on this. It is also pretty  common knowledge that Maharishi has said Ammachi is a flower in the garden of saints, but no reliable source for that that I know of except that it is common knowledge among many Fairfield residents. So if its in the source its oK if not, can't see it. As well its always good to attribute a comment to the author when the comment is a singular one and contentious as this one appears to be.(olive (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
 * If you look at the book you see that there is a footnote 36 in the main text, which then references a statement that this article paraphrases. The footnote has no reference, but seems to make a statement of fact. I think it better to attribute this statement to the author in this case. --BwB (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the principle. If an assertion in a reliable source doesn't have a footnote to another source then it's merely an opinion?   Will Beback    talk    19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. How do you classify this source? --BwB (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources, published by university presses, are considered among the most reliable sources. See WP:SOURCES.   Will Beback    talk    19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about the footnote text? --BwB (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Footnote text is added by the author, or has the author oversight. Since this is a single instance and its a footnote, and contentious, I would suggest author attribution.(olive (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
 * A footnote is no different from the rest of the text. Where did anyone get the idea that it's less reliable than the main text? And where is this contentious, besides Wikipedia? Does any other source dispute this?    Will Beback    talk    21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled by this. What exactly is being argued here? That unless there are multiple reliable sources for a statement of fact, we need in-text attribution of the single source? That a reliable source, needs to provide its own citations? That a footnote in a reliable source is somehow of a different quality of reliability than the main body of text in a reliable source? If that is what is being argued, the arguments are irrational. TimidGuy and KBob have argued that WP:V somehow implies that if a reliable source doesn't supply its own sources that it is somehow unverifiable, which is a complete misreading of the policy. This is a pretty plain vanilla statement of fact which appears to be completely non-controversial; there is no source that disputes it, and there are other sources that, while not qualifying as RS for purposes of citation in the footnotes, certainly confirm it. The over-attribution of such matters not only clutters up the articles, making them virtually unreadable, they inject an improper bias and non-neutral POV implying that simple matters of fact are just somebody's opinion and contentious.

And, I'd still like an explanation of why KBob changed the text in the first place, claiming it didn't reflect the source, when he clearly didn't read the source. Fladrif (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping KeithBob will explain himself. The ArbCom specifically addressed the issue of peremptory deletion of sourced material.  Will Beback   talk    21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A footnote does not have the context main text does, and in terms of references in an academic circle its very doubtful a footnote would carry the same weight text does.  We have one source that makes this claim about Ammachi. Is that significant? Wikipedia doesn't require us to find disputes in sources,   it requires us to support what we do include. And we have one source. Maybe there are lots of sources that make this claim if so then author attribution may not be necessary.  Fladrif cites a blog as evidence for the statement. Is that reliable in any way? I'm  suggesting a simple attribution of  the statement to the author. Why the fuss? Others have insisted on attribution in the past for different reasons. Mystified by the fuss, but have no preference if others want to remove the attribution. (olive (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC))


 * I believe ArbCom made reference to reliable sources. I don't have time to look at what Kbob did or did not remove, but I think the ArbCom reference should be precise. Big difference between sources and reliable sources. I assume he'll address the points when he has time. (And I see it sourced text that was referred to here. Sorry thought it was a source.)(olive (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Where are you getting this concept of footnotes? It seems like your just making it up off the top of your head. Often, footnotes provide additional context for something in the main text. That appears to be the case here.
 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70.
 * Why would you suggest that this is not a reliable source? On the face of it, it's among the most reliable sources we have.   Will Beback    talk    22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I put the proposition to my academic friends, "Do footnotes lack context and carry less weight than the text body of an academic work." It was met with reactions which ranged from "that's ridiculous" to "that's absurd", with "nonsense" being squarely in the middle of the range of opinions on the matter. Footnotes often contain critical information without which the text is not properly understood, and carry no less weight, relevance or reliability than the work as a whole.  I would be astonished if you could produce any source that would agree with your claims on this subject.
 * 2. This is indisputably a reliable source, so the distinction that you are attempting to make re the ArbCom decision is irrelevant. Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm relatively well educated as a writer, so no I didn't make this up. I didn't say the text was less reliable. I said it has less context. To clarify: In writing, throwing in a single line that may not be placed in the context of the writing as a whole or is added on to that text doesn't allow for a full sense of the text. So if I have the text, then the footnote has meaning. If I don't have the text then the footnote is anchor less because it depends on the text it is footnote to, to  have full meaning. In writing an academic paper I would never use just a footnote as part of the content, I would qualify the footnote with the text it is footnote to. But I have to say this discussion is amazing. I suggested an attribution that's all. Do what you want with this... its not worth the argument.


 * I did look at the bit of text Kbob removed, and I don't see in the source provided that it says Chopra formally directed the movement. Maybe I'm missing it. Looks like Kbob just cleaned up for the sake of accuracy.


 * And to both Will and Flad, I didn't question the reliability of source being discussed here I clarified Will's statement which says "source" rather than the ArbCom "reliable source". (olive (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Do we all agree now that Gurus in America is a reliable source, and that footnotes in reliable sources are also reliable? Someone made the claim that the text makes a contentious assertion, but I don't see any evidence for a dispute over it. Therefore I don't see any reason why we should attribute this particular assertion. If editors still think it should be attributed, then they should be prepared to explain why all other text with s single source shouldn't receive the same treatment, which would increase the size of the article significantly.   Will Beback    talk    23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The source was never disputed. No one asserted the text made a contentious claim. I/olive did not dispute the reliability of the footnote only its contextual lack.The subject matter is contentious while content may not be, given this is the only source. Every assertion should be treated individually. This is my position. I don't speak for any other editor.(olive (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
 * By subject matter do you mean the TM movement? I agree that every assertion should be treated individually, but they should also be treated consistently. What makes this undisputed assertion in a highly reliable source so special that attribution is needed?   Will Beback    talk    23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we determine that this statement in the footnotes if "fact"? Flad argues that it is "fact". Why not attribute it? We have attributed much content in the TM articles when it is in books by TM authors - Ana Bonchef, David OJ, etc. --BwB (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we determine if anything found in a reliable source is a fact?
 * Forsthoefel isn't a member of the TM movement, whereas "TM authors" as you call them are and so have an interest in the topic which should be shared with readers.
 * What kind of attribution is "Author Forsthoefel"? How does that help the reader understand the material? If we're going to attribute his opinions, we should give his correct name and title.
 * That identification, is not only incomplete - it's also wrong. The editor who added it was too ___ (fill in the blank) to actually check the source he was writing about. If he had, he would have seen that the material in question wasn't written by "Author Forsthoefel" at all. It was written by "Cynthia Ann Humes, associate professor of Philosophy/Religious Studies". Didn't the ArbCom say say something about  summarizing sources correctly? This is more like a blind edit.    Will Beback    talk   
 * Innocent error, I simply focused on the text and not the name of the author. Sorry about that.  I try to be more thorough in future.  Thanks for making the text changed to attribute to Humes. --BwB (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Remove Un-sourced Text
The above text has no reliable sources. It has been tagged as 'citation needed' for about 2 weeks. Per TM ArbCom "In appropriate instances, clean-up tags may be placed on an article to draw attention to content without citations within the article text. If a citation is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, any editor may remove tagged content." I suggest that this content be removed. Anyone disagree?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2007, a TM movement insider released a large number of movement documents to the whistleblower repository Wikileaks.[203][dead link][citation needed] Part of the documentation exposed an organized and coordinated effort to undermine critical examination of the Transcendental meditation movement, including references to TM which appeared on the WWW.[citation needed]  These efforts also involved targeting comment sections of web pages related to TM movement press releases, whereby TM supporters would insert salutary comments to make it look as if the articles had exaggerated and more widespread acceptance by the public.[citation needed]
 * How do we decide what "reasonable time" means? You think 2 weeks qualifies? Perhaps after you have brought it to editors attention on the talk page, we could give a little more time (2-3 days) and then remove the tagged content. What do other think? --BwB (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The tags are in error. There is not a hotlink there, so it can't be dead. There is a citation to Wikileaks, so it's not unsourced. Anyone can access the documents at Wikleaks- when it's accessible, that is. Because of the traffic on Wikileaks resulting from the recent posting of Iraq and Afghanistan-related documents, it is pretty much impossible to access that site right now. That doesn't render the information unsourced. What should be removed is the tags, not the text. Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then do you have the link or a method by which editors can access the source that verifies the content? If so please add it to the article. At present the content is unsupported and not verifiable. It has been tagged as such for some weeks. I am happy to wait a few more days to see if anyone can locate suitable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we cannot find an accessible link in a day or two, the text can be removed. --BwB (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how one deals with temporarily-unavailable web resources. This text has been here since Kala Bethere added it on March 13 The referenced document has certainly been available at Wikileaks for most of the past 7+ months.  It used to be here I've read it; it certainly supports the text.  Wikileaks appears to be devoting all of its resources at the moment to the war documents, is overwhelmed by the demand on its servers, and is redoing its website and security.  It does not say when access to the other information that was formerly available, such as these documents, will be available.   I suspect that, if you're actually interested in verifying the information, the source is readily available to you in hard copy at the MUM archives. A source does not have to be on the web to be verifiable.  Text supported by dead links is not supposed to be deleted. Deleating this would be directly contrary to WP:DEADLINK
 * Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line. Fladrif (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest problem with this source is that it is wikileaks. Wikis are not dependable sources and should not be used. This section needs to find itself a more reliable citation. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, we can wait a reasonable amount of time for Wiki Leaks to come back online. Since the text appears to be controversial (and at present, sources unavailable) a request for verification seems reasonable. Also since Wiki leaks is a source that is considered in many contexts to be unreliable, since it is self reported and facts are not verified. It would be best if other sources that support the text could be found. So anyway who has sources for this please provide them. Thank you. -- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation
The following Rfc concerns this article. In fact, perhaps it should have been located here. Talk:Transcendental_Meditation Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed intro

 * ''copied from Talk:Transcendental Meditation


 * Current summary at Transcendental Meditation

Here's a version: Kind of bare bones. How is this? Too short, too long, not enough information. I'm not attached in anyway. Just seeing what everyone has in mind by posting something. I feel this is approachable for anyone wanting a little information. All of the trademark/tax stuff seems like too much detail and what the casual reader who only goes as far as the lead or a summary will get bogged down in. Comments needed and welcome.(olive (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

First draft intro/summaryTranscendental Meditation movement:

I did take out "Neoplastic ... " whatever that was... if one source makes a comment I don't think it belongs in a lead...but again open to comments/suggestions.(olive (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I've copied this material from Talk:Transcendental Meditation, since it applies more here.   Will Beback    talk    12:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Olive, thanks for preparing that draft. I think, though, that the article has grown and the intro and summary have not kept pace. So we should look back to the article to make sure that we are summarizing it as best we can. For example, this draft seems to devote a lot of attention to the NLP, but omits many other organizations. Here's the current TOC:
 * 1 Participants
 * 2 History
 * 3 Practice and tenets
 * 3.1 Transcendental Meditation
 * 3.2 TM-Sidhi
 * 3.3 Maharishi Ayurveda
 * 3.4 Maharishi Sthapatya Veda
 * 4 Organizations and structure
 * 4.1 Global Country of World Peace
 * 4.2 Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation
 * 4.3 Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Corp.
 * 4.3.1 Peace Palaces and health centres
 * 4.4 Maharishi Foundation
 * 4.5 Maharishi Group
 * 4.6 Maharishi Ltd
 * 4.7 Purusha and Mother Divine programs
 * 4.8 David Lynch Foundation
 * 4.9 Media
 * 4.10 Educational institutions
 * 4.11 Settlements
 * 5 Defunct organizations
 * 5.1 Spiritual Regeneration Movement
 * 5.2 Students International Meditation Society
 * 5.3 World Plan Executive Council
 * 5.4 Natural Law Party
 * 5.5 Other groups
 * 6 Connection to Hinduism
 * 7 Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion


 * Looking at that, I'd say we should have a lead paragraph, a paragraph of history (or weave it in), a paragraph on technologies, one on organizations, and a fourth one on Hinduism/characterizations. Thoughts?   Will Beback    talk    12:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, what I wrote was meant to be the bones of both into and summary, so yes I'd definitely flesh it out. I think what you're suggesting is fine. What is included should be more general so rather than a focus on any of the specific ways in which the movement is characterized, so per weight in the lead I'd be more inclined to  include a general paragraph that includes how the TM org has been characterized in the sources.(olive (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Here's a version based on your draft, but organized as I suggested, with preliminary text for the technologies and organizations. The headings are just for reference- they wouldn't be in the intro.

''The Transcendental Meditation movement (also referred to as Transcendental Meditation (TM), "Maharishi's worldwide movement", and the Transcendental Meditation Organization) is a world-wide organization founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate).[5]
 * Lead (overview and size)

''It includes programs and organizations connected to the Transcendental Meditation technique, developed and or introduced by the founder. An advanced form of meditation is the TM-Sidhi program which includes "Yogic flying". Maharishi Ayurveda is a system of health treatments using herbs and massage. Maharishi Sthapatya Veda is a system of architecture and city planning.
 * Technologies

''The first organization was the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, founded in Indian in 1958. The International Meditation Society and Student International Meditation Society (SIMS) were founded in the US in the 1960s. The organizations were consolidated under the leadership of the World Plan Executive Council in the 1970s. In 1992, a political party, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded based on the principles of TM and it ran candidates in ten countries before disbanding in 2004.[4] The Global Country of World Peace is the current main organization. The movement operates numerous schools and universities. Mother Divine and Thousand-Headed Purusha are the monastic arms. It also has health spas and assorted businesses. There are many TM-centered communities.
 * Organizations

''The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect.[8] It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, and a "sect", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10] Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.[11][12][13]
 * Characterizations

It's a bit rough, but you get the idea.  Will Beback   talk    21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I'll post this draft.   Will Beback    talk    22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo change
I removed the above photo from the GCWP section and replaced it with a photo of the GWCP headquarters. Since the Bond Street building in the photo above is not the GCWP headquarters and in fact is no longer owned by GCWP and is not mentioned in the section (nor should it be mentioned in a summary), it seemed to have no relevance. So I have posted it here for storage. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 02:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [File:Global Country headquarters.JPG|thumb|Headquarters of the Global Country of World Peace in Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa.
 * The building belonged to the movement. History doesn't change. I don't think there was a good reason to remove the photo, but I acknowledge the the GCWP HQ is a better photo and so replacing it is not a problem.   Will Beback    talk    02:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead summary of article text
In the lead we have the text "...the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate). " This is sourced from a Times obit. However, nowhere in the article is there verbiage about 1,000 TM centers, or $3.5 bil in assets. Should the lead not reflect text of article? --BwB (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire lead needs to be rewritten. In the meantime, I suggest you could easily fix it by copying that statement into the body of the article.   Will Beback    talk    04:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Was going to do that but just being cautious. --BwB (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor research, again
This is the second time this source has been added incorrectly. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 27. Since editors are so eager to use this source shall we add what the author himself says about TM? "No, it's not a lifestyle. It's an eternity style because it'a a portal to hell."  Will Beback   talk    22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.
 * "It’s not a religion- The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural technique practiced by millions of people of all religions, including clergy. They report that practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique does not require or involve faith or any particular set of beliefs." My Dogma ran over your Karma by Roger LeBlanc p. 131, 2007

I'd like to leave this text here for now. The Leblanc source should be removed as a source for some of the content that was added, and I'd like to both check the other sources and the corresponding wording in the article before readding whatever is left once we find the appropriate reliable sources for the text. This will take awhile and I'm not sure what will be left so just moving the whole thing here. If there's disagreement for that please revert me.(olive (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

''Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult. Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics. ''

There doesn't seem to be too much in these sources to support the statements we have in place now, so I'd recommend removing the content permanently. If I've missed something, please let me know.(olive (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, this is the peremptory removal of sourced material, an issue which was specifically addressed in the ArbCom case. Please revert your deletion while we're discussing this.   Will Beback    talk    02:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to revert, but this content is not sourced in those sources... Therefore there is no removal of reliably sourced content... Its not sourced. I assume your understanding is different than mine on this. No worries. Your call.(olive (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Please explain your problem with the text. As for Leblanc, if it's a reliable and noteworthy source, as Keithbob obviously believe, then let's include a proper summary of his view.
 * As for the rest of the text, what was there before Keithbob's edit seems reasonable, though it needed sources:
 * Advocates for the Transcendental Meditation technique and other teachings of the TM movement assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, but not a religious one. Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.
 * Instead of deleting the material outright maybe a revert would be a more conservative option?   Will Beback    talk    09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I clearly didn't say I had a problem with the text, I said the content was not sourced, and removed the text to see if I could save any of it per the sources. There's lots of ways to skin a cat and moving text here that is not properly sourced while saying that yes we need this kind if content is one way of doing it. In fact I had looked at Chryssides who makes some statements about TM movement and religion, and we could also use the definitive comment, attributed inline, if there is one, which I haven't seen so far, from the TM organization. This article is TM movement not TM, so sources have to be explicitly about TM movement.
 * The source, at least as far as I've looked at it, is facetious, and highly pejorative. I'm not sure that's clear to everyone. It took me a bit to realize what Leblance was doing. Well meaning editors make mistakes.
 * This statement seems oddly retaliatory, "Since editors are so eager to use this source shall we add what the author himself says about TM? "No, it's not a lifestyle. It's an eternity style because it'a a portal to hell." since it takes such an extreme and pejorative view." I assume good faith and hope that's not what was meant.
 * Kbob of course was using the text as if non facetious, to add a non pejorative perspective. Whether we need more of the same in the article body is open for discussion.
 * Suggesting a revert is appropriate which takes text and in essence hides it seems at odds with transparent practice, while clearly indicating the source and text parallel is not accurate, and moving it to a talk page where it is very visible and where all editors can work on it seems a more transparent way to deal with the situation. But as I said lots of ways of doing things.(olive (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Since Keithbob is not responding to the inquiries we can't say why he would have added the same poor source twice. Nor can we say why he'd misinterpret it twice. But anyone who makes that many inexplicable mistakes is doning something wrong tand the "innocent mistake" excuse only goes so far whn it comes to behaviors that are specifically addressed on the ArbCom case.
 * I again suggest reverting back to the uncontroversial text that was there before Keithbob's faulty edit. If there's a desire to edit the text we'd better start with a good foundation.   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with reverting if that's the way you want to deal with it. Please feel free, or perhaps Kbob will. We have the text here as well, and we can work on that here, or just start over. As for Kbob, we have no clue what his real life commitments are so when he comments is up to his schedule not ours, seems to me.. :O)(olive (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Edit-and-run isn't a good strategy, especially when the edits are of poor quality. I'll revert the edit. If someone wants to propose changes to the text then let's disuss it here.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob is back to editing but still hasn't come here to explain why he's repeatedly misrepresented this source. I'd also like to hear whether he believes it is a reliable source, since they express an opinion on TM not otherwise discussed in the article.  Will Beback   talk    22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Keithbob didn't show up because he has seen in this, and other Talk Page threads, that Will BeBack appears to be more interested in persecuting an editor for an innocent misreading of a source that the editor added to support existing text, instead than [of] making a simple and undisputed correction and moving on.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Keithbob is intentionally ducking discussions of his edits then that's a factor to consider in the future. If he'd prefer that his edits be reverted rather than discussed that can happen. The ArbCom did admonish editors about the misuse of sources, and I'm sorry if Keithbob does not take that admonishment seriously.   Will Beback    talk    20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of my point.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)