Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive 1

Orphaned references in Transcendental Meditation technique
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Transcendental Meditation technique's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williamson": From Transcendental Meditation: Williamson, Lola Transcendent in America:Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New ReligionNYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500 From TM-Sidhi program: Williamson, Lola, ''Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion", NYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500, pp. 97-99 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed extra TM reference
I removed the extra reference in the first sentence to "Transcendental Meditation". The header states that the article is about TM technique and refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is linked, so the extra reference to TM is not needed. --BwB (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TM is not the same as TMM, so both links are needed. I'm not sure why you're removing links to that article, but I don't think it's helpful to readers.   Will Beback    talk    15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will. Linking to the main article is useful and the usual practice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is the article on the TM technique, so let's keep the focus on that topic. The header states that the article is about TM technique and also refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is also linked. --BwB (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about MMY either but it wouldn't make sense to delete those links just to keep the article better focused. You seem to be removing links to the TM article from other articles, even using misleading edit summaries. That's unhelpful.   Will Beback    talk    16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you felt "mislead" by my edit summary. I did combine 2 sentences to make one sentence, hence the summary, and I did feel it was more clear and direct for the reader. I do not see the need to direct the reader to the TM article since this article is about the TM technique. Again, if others see a rational for this beyond my reasoning, then so be it. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The TM article covers more than just the technique, obviously. SCI, for example. I'll go ahead and restore it.   Will Beback    talk    18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article covers SCI also. --BwB (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's only a short summary of the main coverage at TM.   Will Beback    talk    19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TM in schools and universities 1990s–present
The material in the "TM in schools and universities 1990s–present" section is increasingly related to, and sourced from, the David Lynch Foundation. It seems like this material is more relevant to that topic than to the general topic of the TM technique. I suggest we move the DLF-funded programs to the DLF article or, less ideally, merge the DLF article here. Any other suggestions?  Will Beback   talk    04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely against a merge of DLF and TMT. --BwB (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merger. Some of the TM programs in schools etc. have been funded by DLF. If you feel the mentioning of funding by DLF is off topic we can consider and adjustment for those specific phrases or sentences. For example this sentence could be moved to the DLF article. "Its principal, George H. Rutherford, is a member of the David Lynch Foundation's Board of Advisors." However, moving other text is not appropriate as it they are clearly relevant to this article. From a quick scan of the section I see there are about 20 references and only 3-4 citations are sourced to the DLF web site.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't seem directly related to the technique. Instead, this material is about a limited number of training programs in a limited number of US schools. In all, it covers at most a couple of thousand people, out of the reported six million who've learned the technique. It's more about the movement, or the DLF, than about the technique. So if folks don't want to merge the DLF material here then let's move the DLF material from this article to that article. I don't see any benefit to splitting it between two articles.   Will Beback    talk    21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed that Keithbob deleted relevant material about the DLF from this article. If we're going to write about the DLF here then we need to say so, not hide the association. I'm going to restore those deletions.   Will Beback    talk    22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I did was remove redundant mentioning of DLF. I left plenty of references to DLF behind and DLF's role as a foundation that provides scholarships for TM programs in schools was clear. Here is how the section stood after the last time I edited this article on Oct 5 2010. The DLF is mentioned or referred to twice in the section's opening paragraph and then four more times in the 6 sub sections that follow. Please stop mis-characterizing my edits and good faith efforts to improve the article.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How did I mis-characterize your edits? I said you deleted the material, which you did.   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chalmers is an Ayurveda practitioner?
The article identifies Chalmers as an Ayurveda practitioner. Is there a source for this? According to this 2003 full-disclosure bio in BMJ, he hasn't practiced Ayurveda since 1991. He's been with the National Health Service since 1996. "Competing interests: Roger Chalmers is a full-time locum general practitioner and has derived more than 99% of his income from NHS clinical work over the past 7 years. He became a teacher of Transcendental Meditation in 1975, and has lectured widely on research and medical applications of this and related techniques over the past 27 years. From 1982-1996 he was directly involved with institutions publicly advocating TM<holding a number of non-salaried academic positions (including co-editing of collected papers on TM research). From 1987-1991, he worked in full-time private medical practice utilizing the complementary system known as Maharishi's Vedic Approach to Health, which includes TM, alongside modern medicine." TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. The text you quote says he has practiced MVAH. Is the issue simply that he's a former Ayurveda practitioner rather than a current one? If that's an important distinction we can add "former". We can add "TM teacher" while we're at it.   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the Chalmers who lost his licence to practice medicine in 1991 for serious professional misconduct over his failed attempt to treat HIV with MAV, is it not? How he can work as a locum GP and do NHS clinical work while stricken from the Register is a mystery to me. It leads me to question the accuracy and forthrightness of the BMJ disclosure bio. Further, nothing in the disclosure bio directly states that he no longer practices MAV; it is merely an inference that TG is drawing that is not contained in the source. Perhaps 1% of his income is derived from MAV. For all we know, he is using MAV in his clinical work as a locum. Perhaps he does it gratis while moonlighting. We can't tell from the source. Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yes it is difficult to tell from the source Chalmers current connection to TM and Maharishi Ayurveda. --BwB (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Chalmers disclosure statement for a 1999 LTE in the BMJ has a slightly different flavor than the 2003 as does a blurb for a 2000 NLP-UK Annual Conference.  The current MVI-UK website lists him as a TM teacher.  It appears that he was not reinstated to the Medical Register until 2006 , so I continue to be at a loss as to how he could have worked as a locum GP or done NHS clinical work in the 1992-2007 timeframe.  Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Click on "GP Register entry date": "'If a doctor is on the GP Register, the GP Register entry date shows the date they were entered on the GP Register. To work as a general practitioner (GP) in the NHS, other than as a trainee, a doctor must have their name on the GP Register and be fully registered with a licence to practise. For many doctors the date of entry will be 1 April 2006 as this is when the GP Register was established.'" TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's the point of this thread? Is there a proposed edit?   Will Beback    talk    20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for him being an NHS physician and a "former" MVAH practitioner?  Will Beback   talk    22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Former Maharishi Ayurveda practitioner Roger A. Chalmers, a TM promoter and National Health Service physician
 * The "source" is a self-serving statement by Chalmers in an addendum to a letter to the editor to the BMJ which is inconsistent with an earlier self-serving letter to the editor by Chalmers, as parsed by TG. I note that Chalmer is a regular LTE contributor to the BMJ, and his concept of COI as reflected in his disclosure statements proceeds from the premise that whatever he does as a volunteer without compensation doesn't need to be disclosed. What we do have a RS for is that Chalmers is "Dean of Medicine of the unrecognized Maharishi University of Natural Law - Mentmore" who was stricken from the Medical Register for "serious professional misconduct" directly related to his practice of MVAH We have no reliable source - just his say-so - that he is a NHS practitioner, and no reliable source that he is a "former" MVAH practitioner. I regard this edit by TG, claimed to be "per discussion" as a violation of the TM ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the usual public source to determine if someone is an NHS physician? I admit that I do not know much about that, I don't need to see physicians so much, but there must be one official source for that. How comes this is complicated? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make if he's an NHS physician or not? How is it relevant to the fact the he assembled a list of TM studies? If we want to say he has expertise in evaluating scientific studies, then the mere fact he went to medical school is probably sufficient. I suggest we go with something short and relevant, like "physician and TM teacher".   Will Beback    talk    03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "physician and TM teacher" OK with me. --BwB (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a good choice. Why go after me for using "former"? Will was the one who suggested it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Integrative Cardiology
This doesn't seem like an accurate summary of the source. What does the source say about double blinding?  Will Beback   talk    13:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ''According to a medical textbook on integrative cardiology, double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies, but it is important to blind assessors and study coordinators. The textbook examined two studies that involved TM and found them to be carefully blinded, in that the technicians and physicians involved in assessing the outcome didn't know whether the subjects were in the TM group or control group. The textbook said the studies had many other essential design features, including contact time with instructors, structure of the intervention, level of expectation for positive results, and assessment of adherence.
 * The text which TG added is fundamentally inconsistent with the source. The misrepresentation is so eggregious as to be a violation of the TM ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page 73 mentions that "double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies". --Uncreated (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thus one compares it to an appropriate control like health education to which TM has found to be similar. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's going on? Page 73 says double blinding usually isn't possible. The content on TM says though, that, researchers used blinding where possible then describes the study protocol.(olive (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
 * James that sounds like a bit of WP: OR to me.(olive (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC))


 * So, let me get this straight. The material is not on page 81, as the citation indicates, but is actually on page 73? And instead of being written by Vogel and Krucoff it's actually written by Nahin, Berman, et al.? And this was added by a university professor?
 * Are we now adding comments about mind/body research in general? Maybe it'd be better to sticking to material that's directly about TM instead of general comments that cover myriad other relaxation and meditation techniques.   Will Beback    talk    09:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will your personal pejorative comments aren't acceptable. Please deal with the edits not the editor. We can delete the first sentence which although sourced does not reference TM directly, but as part of the textbook provides context. If that context isn't necessary it can be removed as far as I'm concerned, but I would prefer to wait for input from the editor who added the content.(olive (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * What pejorative comments?   Will Beback    talk    00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This text and the issue it is addressing is getting more than a little coatrackish. This is going back to the asides about the merits and shortcomings of the Jadad scale, and is being presented essentially as an argument against criticisms of the rigor of TM research. And, calling this book a textbook is a gross mischaracterization. Fladrif (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The addition that Timid has made should be put back in to the article with the appropriate citations. Its reliably sourced and the argument whether we are adding comments about mind/body research in general is a separate issue. --Uncreated (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the mind/body issue is directly concerned with this content addition. The assertion in question is not about TM in particular. In the past, a set of editors here have been quite clear that we only include references to TM, not to any other form of meditation. I propose deleting the first sentence of the posted text. I'm also not sure why we're describing the source as a "textbook", rather than just as a "book".     Will Beback    talk    00:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This book does not count as a reliable source. It is not written from a scientific POV but an alt med one. I doubt it would pass at the WP:RS notice board. Thus should not be used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could be a little more specific. Vogel an MD seems to be well published and an authority in cardiac area. How is it that this is not a reliable source. An individual editor who assumes something will not pass the RS Notice board is not reason to say the source shouldn't be used. That'a an opinion, and opinions just  don't carry weight when investigating sources.(olive (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Vogel isn't the author, just one of the editors.   Will Beback    talk    01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Vogel's credentials and his other publications. This is a secondary source. Is this a reliable source or not?(olive (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

I'm also concerned that this source may be referring to studies already discussed in the article. If so, it's be better to have a full discussion of each paper. Further, since there have been well over 300 studies, finding just two that meet standards is in itself remarkable. Rather than leaving them anonymous, we should be discussing these two acceptable papers in more detail, if we're not already.  Will Beback   talk    01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on here. I just realized this text was actually removed from the article. Why? Per the TM arbItration you do not remove reliably sourced content. Will since you removed it do you want to replace it? Or of course someone else can readd it. (olive (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * What was removed? The only change I see was to replace "textbook" with "book".   Will Beback    talk    03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Yes, I see. You reverted yourself. Great.(olive (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, a minute after I mistakenly deleted it, two days ago.   Will Beback    talk    03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not putting in the correct page numbers. Also, Will, I'm still learning the new ref style used on MVAH and I wasn't sure how to integrate the chapter title. I've now gone back to the old style and have put in all the information. Sorry about that. I think if anyone reads the chapter, the concerns expressed above will be met. This book is an evidence-based examination of alternative and complementary approaches to cardiology. This chapter discusses proper research design for non-pharmacological approaches to medicine. It looks at the NIH-funded randomized controlled trials in process and a few high-quality studies recently completed. It outlines the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews of CAM modalities in cardiology. We shouldn't remove the general statement regarding mind/body studies, since it clearly includes TM in the context of this chapter. Note that none of the statements in Ospina about quality specifically mention TM. TimidGuy (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The text still fundamentally misrepresented the conclusions of the source. I've fixed it. Fladrif (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we want to use this source for a discussion of study design issues on mind/body therapies then we need to properly summarize what they have to say. The line about double blinding is taken out of context, and omits their assertion that if double blinding is not done then other aspects of study design have to be stronger to compensate. It also discusses several other design topics, some of which have been issues with TM research: control group, preference trials, attrition and adherence, and therapeutic allegiance. So just picking one statement out of a several-page overview is incomplete and misleading.   Will Beback    talk    23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says, "These studies had in place many of the design features and implementation strategies outlined in our discussion of CAM clinical trial design." And then it enumerates them. Why can't we just summarize what they say? We don't need to juxtapose the double blinding point and their point about careful blinding. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These issues seem like generic research issues not directly connected to TM. Yes, we should summarize what they say, if that's what we're going to do. But we shouldn't pick a single item out of a list and only summarize it. If their double-blinding point applies to TM then so do the others.   Will Beback    talk    22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the book specifically discusses how these two studies address these generic issues. If you feel that what I wrote doesn't adequately represent the text, perhaps you could draft a different version and we'll discuss it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest, again, that we split off the research into a standalone article. Then these issues could be given full expression. We could include a broad range of sources that discuss TM and other mind/body research. Bringing in a comprehensive set of sources, I'm thinking at least 1,000 words, and maybe twice that. I don't see any way around splitting off the research, as the text seems to keep growing, as may be expected.   Will Beback    talk    12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This source is being used to try to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK about study design. TG has been quite candid that what he is trying to do is to use this source to refute criticisms of the conclusions of TM research studies which were not double-blinded. And, as I noted above, and as other editors have noted at WP:RSN, the text TG wrote misrepresents and mischaracterizes what the source actually says. That being said, I agree with Will - the "research" material should be moved to its own article. Every time this material is trimmed to a managable and appropriate size, it soon resprouts more vigorously than before, and essentially overwhelms this article. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the extent of the discussions on the research in the TM article pointing to more and more information on the research, I'd also agree to a split off of the research while leaving in place a summary of the research on the technique here.(olive (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Integrative Cardiology II
Have removed this text:

"According to a chapter in a book on complementary and alternative medicine for cardiology, double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies, but it is important to blind assessors and study coordinators. The chapter examined two studies that involved TM and found them to be carefully blinded where possible, in that the technicians and physicians involved in assessing the outcome didn't know whether the subjects were in the TM group or control group. The authors said the studies had many other essential design features, including contact time with instructors, structure of the intervention, level of expectation for positive results, and assessment of adherence. They said that the greater adherence level in the TM group in one study called into question the results of previous studies on TM that showed the TM group was superior to control groups because the results may have been due to greater adherence compared to the control group. They also said that although studies of dosage are uncommon in mind-body research, TM research should study the most effective doses. One of the studies they looked at examined not just TM but was multimodal, including diet, yoga, and an herbal formula. The authors said that decisions made about which aspects of intervention to control in this study made it impossible to discern the impacts of any single component of the intervention on the cardiovascular risk factors. Richard Nahin, Josh Berman, Catherine Stoney, and Shan Wong, 'Approaches to Clinical Trials of Complementary and Alternative Medicine,' in Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart, eds., John Vogel and Mitchell Krucoff, McGraw Hill Medical, 2007, pp 63-86, 'Double blinding is not usually possible in mind-body and procedure-based intervention trials, as well as trials of special diets.' (p 73) 'These studies [Schneider 2005, Fields 2002] had in place many of the design features and implementation strategies outlined in our discussion of CAM clinical trial design. For example, these researchers implemented careful blinding strategies where possible, particularly in regard to key outcome variables.' (p. 81)"

Alt med textbooks are not reliable sources when it comes to research methods. Please get approval at the reliable notice board first. The opinions are alt med books are also not WP:DUE. Opinions of other edits here are clear in this matter  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have some sources in this article that do not meet the supposed standard of the editors who showed up at the Notice board. They'll have to be removed since they fall way below the standard of even this last deleted source.(olive (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Alternative medicine textbooks are as reliable as any other if WP standards are met. And what WP policy are you citing which says an editor has to check at a notice board before they add content? We can't make up rules. Its a mistake to take the opinions of three editors at a notice board and create a set of rules from them. (olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * As an aside. I wonder why the same editors always show up to debunk TM. I can pretty much guarantee who they 'll be. Just an observation.(olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * We can make more observations like that if you think they are appropriate and helpful. Do you?   Will Beback    talk    22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by this "the opinions are alt med books are also not WP:DUE." please, for future reference. I'm unclear as to what this means.(olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

James. You removed content while the topic of whether its reliably sourced is still under discussion. That's not particularly good protocol. Because you happen to agree with the uninvolved editors doesn't make it right or true. What it looks like is that you waited for comments that suited you then used that as a reason to remove content. I'm going to assume that's not what you mean to do, but unfortunately that's what it looks like. You might wait next time before removing content that some editors feel is reliably sourced.(olive (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * It appears, since you've so often done the same thing, that you're speaking based on the ArbCom decision. "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Remember also another admonition: " Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable."   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No actually I suggested Doc wait for more input before he acts based on the notice board...There is still discussion over there. Do you have a problem with including all comments and editors in a decision? (olive (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I was responding to this remark: "What it looks like is that you waited for comments that suited you then used that as a reason to remove content. I'm going to assume that's not what you mean to do, but unfortunately that's what it looks like." That seems to be commenting on a motive. If I wrote "it appears that you are a lying, cheating fraud. I assume good faith, but that's what it looks like," then I bet there'd be complaints. If you are simply asking someone to wait then implying that there was a subversive motive for not waiting is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Just ask them to wait.   Will Beback    talk    00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked for further input here .(olive (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Three comments are fairly good turnout. The concern is the misrepresentation of this source as something which it was not ( a medical textbook ). Editors get block for this sort of thing. Alt med textbooks are not reliable sources for scientific ideas ( such as research methods ). If we where comments on religious or social content that would be a different matter. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read information on the book and it could very well be a textbook. Further, editors are not blocked for good faith edits,  and especially where the edit is controversial. As I said, a source is reliable if  compliant per WP: RS.
 * You need to wait for the discussion to slow down and with enough time for editors to come in and comment... you didn't even wait 24 hours. Deciding three editors is enough is arbitrary.(olive (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes but it was claimed to be a "medical textbook". The WP:RS notice board is clear. Thus no need to draw this out further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Its a notice board and editors are still commenting. The issue wasn't the wording textbook/ book it was whether the source was reliable or not. If you wait long enough you might really have a case against this source since possible MEDRS people might comment. Why cut this off? (olive (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Clarification This discussion was brought to the Reliable Notices noticeboard to bring in outside input on whether the source (above) is reliable... and not.... on whether this is a text book or a book. That isn't the concern raised here, and isn't the question raised at the RS Noticeboard.(olive (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I asked about the source for calling it a "textbook" in my comment of 00:05, 9 November 2010. See above.   Will Beback    talk    01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that discussion progressed on as to whether the source was reliable, and so went to RS Noticeboard as: "Is this a reliable source for the Transcendental Meditation technique article"(olive (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure why you rasied the issue of designating the source as a textbook here, but I don't see where that's been resolved.   Will Beback    talk    02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't raise the issue. Maybe Flad did originally. Doesn't matter. James said editors would be blocked for misnaming a book a textbook. I would hope no admin would do such a thing. James seems to be implying that whether the source is a book or a text book is the issue and that the RSN is clear on that. I'm simply saying that the issue is the source not whether we're dealing with a textbook or not. I may have misunderstood his syntax.(olive (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I raised the issue initially, and you raised it again, in your "clarification". TimidGuy asserted, apparently without evidence, that this is a textbook. I've asked how that determination was made. I'm sorry that TimidGuy isn't avaiable to explain his editing. That'd simplify this discussion.   Will Beback    talk    03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I referred to it as a textbook because McGraw-Hill Medical is known as a leading publisher of textbooks. It's sold as a textbook in the University of Minnesota bookstore. This review says that the book is useful to educators and clinicians. But I'm fine if we don't refer to it as a medical textbook. The feedback we got at RSN is that sources should be peer reviewed. In particular, when I asked whether it was appropriate to use newspapers and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal as a source, Cirt said, "When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources." So if we delete the Integrative Cardiology material, we should also delete this other material that uses sources not peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for those sources.   Will Beback    talk    13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the publisher, the book's market is "cardiologists, cardiology residents, and internists". So it's not a textbook in the sense of a book used to teach university courses; it's addressed to practising professionals. An academic publisher's editorial oversight is fully analogous to peer review in journals, and McGraw-Hill is one of the most reputable academic publishers around. There is no question that the book meets both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. -- JN 466  15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Timid, are there many sources in this article that are not peer reviewed? --BwB (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JN. And it looks like this is the consensus at RSN. Even ScienceApologist has relented and has agreed that this can be used to briefly report on study design. (For some reason he didn't realize that it wasn't being used to report outcomes.) BwB, yes, the research section cites The Guardian, The Canadian, The Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, and the 2001 edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Also, WP:MEDRS says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles." TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so what adjustments do you recommend Timid with respect to the material sourced by the popular press you mentioned above? --BwB (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion would seem to be appropriate if we are to follow MEDRS and the suggestion at RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please bring any potential deletions to talk first.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Critical sources
The material I specified at RSN was this: "According to The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been 'criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence',[102] for 'methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls',[103] and for 'failing to conduct double-blind experiments' and for 'influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester'.[104] According to Newsweek, early research was 'not of high caliber', failing to adequately address self-selection and the placebo effect, but later research has been 'much more rigorous'.[105]" There's also this: "Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, was quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying that 'there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children. The data that exist are all deeply flawed.'[94]" It seems important that we adhere to the guideline, especially since there was support on RSN for not using sources such as these that aren't peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the material should be removed as it does not meet the guidelines. --BwB (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to WP:RS it depends on what the source is being used to say. To take a book that is NOT a medical textbook and call it one is not appropriate. This book could potentially be used for other stuff. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The material TG is referring to does not make medical claims, so MEDRS would not seem to apply.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is taking a position on research that comes under MEDRS. As such it is making a medical claim. --Uncreated (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the language in MEDRS that you think applies most closely to this situation?   Will Beback    talk    22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7]"--Uncreated (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The news articles are commenting on medical research and rightly or wrongly potentially conveying wrong or misleading information about that research. Seems pretty straight forward to me.--Uncreated (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've quoted material from WP:MEDRS. That material is a general description of issues with articles in the popular press. After laying out those issues, it reaches a conclusion:
 * A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.
 * That's not what we're doing here. We are not using the popular press for any medical facts or figures.   Will Beback    talk    01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Popular news is being used to comment on medical research. We should be using higher quality sources to comment on medical research not popular news. Perhaps the confusion here is that I think Popular news is being used to comment on medical research and you do not?--Uncreated (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MEDRS does not prohibit using popular press to comment on medical research. The section you quoted prohibits using popular press to report medical facts or figures. They are different things.   Will Beback    talk    01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are able to get an outside opinion at the talk page associated with WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to extrapolate a fictional example: imagine the author of a peer-reviewed paper admitted to the mainstream press that he had falsified data. By Uncreated's logic, we would not be able to report that fact. That seems absurd to me. While we might not withdraw reporting the paper's conclusions, we should certainly add the non-peer-reviewed information about it as context necessary for the reader to judge that conclusion.   Will Beback    talk    09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We got an outside opinion at RSN. Why are we ignoring it? An uninvolved editor said that these sources weren't compliant because they're not peer reviewed. I asked if the consensus was that they should be removed, and no one objected. And the consensus was that the medical book was compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, so this is getting confused. Which sources and RSN thread are you referring to?   Will Beback    talk    11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that posting on RSN. Here's the particular exchange: We don't know that it's not peer reviewed. I have some medical textbooks that list the peer reviewers. My impression is that it's common for textbooks to be peer reviewed. Note that this section of the article that discusses quality cites many sources that aren't peer reviewed, including newspapers, a magazine, a debunking book from a popular press, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal. Should all these be deleted? TimidGuy (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)"
 * And the consensus was that the book published by McGraw Hill is a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We got an outside opinion at RSN. Why are we ignoring it? An uninvolved editor said that these sources weren't compliant because they're not peer reviewed. I asked if the consensus was that they should be removed, and no one objected. And the consensus was that the medical book was compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, so this is getting confused. Which sources and RSN thread are you referring to?   Will Beback    talk    11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that posting on RSN. Here's the particular exchange: We don't know that it's not peer reviewed. I have some medical textbooks that list the peer reviewers. My impression is that it's common for textbooks to be peer reviewed. Note that this section of the article that discusses quality cites many sources that aren't peer reviewed, including newspapers, a magazine, a debunking book from a popular press, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal. Should all these be deleted? TimidGuy (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)"
 * And the consensus was that the book published by McGraw Hill is a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've split the threads to separate two different topics, and renamed one to "Integrative Cardiology II", since that's the topic.  Will Beback    talk    12:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Cirt's response, I don't think the question was put correctly. The language in MEDRS is fairly clear that exclusion of popular sources is limited to providing medical facts and figures. If this is an issue we can put a question about this point in particular. Meanwhile, can you address the example I've provided, which I believe shows why it's illogical to exclude criticism of peer-reviewed material from othewise reliable sources? To repeat: should we exclude an admission of academic fraud if it only appears in the mainstream media?   Will Beback    talk    12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That entire thread at RSN had nothing to do with medical facts and figures. The context was very clearly the quality and design of research. And the unanimous response was that the sources should be peer reviewed. Why aren't we following the feedback that we got? TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That thread was about  Integrative Cardiology. If you want to start a thread on these sources then that's fine. I have a few more sources to add to the list, including Lola Williamson.     Will Beback    talk    21:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Practitioners
Readers might be interested in learning about who practises TM; has the article ever listed some prominent practitioners? -- JN 466  15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the movement, four to six million people have been trained in the TM technique since 1959. Notable practitioners include The Beatles, David Lynch, John Hagelin, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow. For more names, see List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners. 
 * How's that?   Will Beback    talk    19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for Clint Eastwood. :) We should perhaps say "past or present" practitioners if we're listing people who don't practise any more. -- JN 466  02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "actor" and "director" slots are already filled. I think adding "past or present" would improve it.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the source that was deleted
Per earlier discussions, we felt The Humanistic Psychologist was the stronger source, since it's put out by APA. I finally got a copy of the article and substituted it for Journal of Meditation and Meditation research. Fine if you feel the latter should also be included, but please restore the citation to The Humanistic Psychologist. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not mischaracterize what I did as deleting a source. I did no such thing. I corrected your misidentification of the linked article. The linked URL is to the later version of the article in the Journal of Meditation & Meditation Research, not to the article in The Humanistic Psychologist, published by Division 32 of the APA. I have no idea what differences there may be between the two, but if the authors calls them different "versions" they are not the same article, and it is improper to link to article A while calling it article B.  Fladrif (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"At the time"
We could modify almost every assertion with this phrase. And so on. I don't think the article would be improved by adding that phrase in every possible situation. If we have actual sources which contradict the first source then the neutral POV would be to provide both views. "A 2008 source says X, while a 2009 source says Y."  Will Beback   talk    12:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a 2009 source, the meditation practice involved at that time the use of a sound or mantra...
 * It's just very odd to use present tense when nothing has come from MERU since the 1970s. The sentence as it now reads is saying that MERU is a significant source of the research. It should be "was," TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources to support your assertions then I'd be happy to see the article reflect those. Meanwhile, I'll change it to "have been", which is halfawy between "are" and "were".   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Contraindications
I have seen sources that mention ill-effects from practicing TM. But I don't see a specific mention of TM and contraindications in the cited source. Is the page correct?  Will Beback   talk    18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page is correct. Are you looking at the most recent edition? And yes, it specifically mentions TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the Google Books version, which is the 2004 edition. I see you've cited the 2009 edition. Thanks for pointing that out.   Will Beback    talk    20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving three sections, including the Marketing section, from the TM article here
Just want to check that no one disapprove that we move here the Theoretical concepts, Characterization and Marketing sections from the TM article. I especially ask for the Marketing section because this section was not a part of the consensus in the recent TM article Rfc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the discussions on the other page I've moved this material here. It's tacked on the end but there may be better places for the sections.
 * 8 Theoretical concepts
 * 8.1 Maharishi Vedic Science
 * 8.2 Science of Creative Intelligence
 * 8.3 Views on consciousness
 * 8.4 Seven States of Consciousness
 * 9 Characterizations
 * 9.1 Self characterizations
 * 9.2 Government
 * 9.3 Religion
 * 10 Marketing
 * This material now represents about a quarter of the article. We'll eventually need to recompose the intro to include a summary.   Will Beback    talk    10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Draft of a short paragraph to summarize this material.
 * The theoretical basis for Transcendental Meditation is the Science of Creative Intelligence, which describes the Maharishi's view of Natural Law. Skeptics question whether it is scientific. According to proponents, practicing the TM technique can lead to higher levels of consciousness and supernormal special'' powers, incuding the Maharishi Effect. The movement actively markets TM as a scientifically proven technique but not a religion while sociologists and governmental bodies have categorized it as part of a new religous movement.
 * It has to gloss over a lot of detail, of course. I' made it a little shorter than necessary to allow for some expansion.   Will Beback    talk    09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will make more comments about it, but for now my problem is simply that I could not locate which sources are being summarized in the second sentence. I did not found the term supernormal power in the text. Proponents do not use that term. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hagelin uses that term, as do manhy outsiders including scholars. Can suggest a better one?   Will Beback    talk    12:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it surprising that Hagelin uses that term, but that was not an important part of my comment. I struck it. The problem is that I could not locate the sources and the term "supernormal powers" is not in the article itself. No need to suggest a term. Let us make sure that we follow sources and not only a few sources with a particular POV. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I've changed "supernormal" to "special", which is a reference to the Maharishi Effect.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, there was too many points in my initial comment. The first point was the most important: what sources are being summarized? If we take care of that point, the others will be taken care of more easily. The sentence says "According to proponents, ..." If we have the sources, we might find a better way to report what these proponents actually say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sections summarize the sources. This material is one step removed from that and is just summarizing the sections. Of course, we shouldn't say anything that's not in a source somewhere. But the question here shoulnd't be "which source is being summarize?" but rather "which lines in the sections are being summarized?" Have you read the sections on consciousness? Is there a doubt that proponents say practice of TM can lead to higher states of consciousness and the Maharishi Effect? If there is then re-read those sections and check their sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a normal way to proceed, but I could not find sources that are appropriate for a sentence that begins with "According to proponents..." That makes me feel that perhaps it is a little bit too soon to make a summary for the Intro. We just moved these sections here and already new sources are being added, paragraphs are moved around, etc.  I personally prefer to give to the editors here the time to incorporate these sections in the article. That's my feeling. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see much active editing. These sections have been fairly stable, though in a different article. I don't recommend waiting. The main TM article depends on this article, so if we wait here then that backs up the other editing. As for "proponents" - they are identified the same way that "critics" and "sceptics" are identified. Is there a complaint about characterizing MMY as a proponent of the TM technique? In any case, so long as this draft is reasonably correct we can add it now and fix it later, just like we do with any text.   Will Beback    talk    01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the text, reorganized existing text, and split one sentence.   Will Beback    talk    13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Identifiers are most effective if they're specific. Identifying MMY as a "proponent" of TM may be an accurate statement, but it hardly gives the reader specific information. Its a bit like saying the Queen of England, the figure head of the Anglican Church is Anglican... sure... but we'd be more efficient in our writing to just say, she 's the head of the Church of England. If anyone is attached to saying proponent go ahead but I think its unnecessary.(olive (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
 * The issue is that more than one person makes the assertion. If we were writing about Christianity, would we say, "According to Pope Benedict XIV, Christ was resurrected on the third day"? It'd be silly because resurrection is a tenet of the religion and all Christians believe that. Plus, I'm not even sure that the sources specifically attribute the view to the Maharishi.   Will Beback    talk    19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Research
The research part of the lead doesn't reflect what's in the article. As well, the research section is dense and hard to wade through. I'd like to suggest:


 * The lead be updated to reflect what's in the article on the research.
 * We apply another level of organization to the research section so its easier to read and understand...(olive (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
 * It seems like we've discussed the summary of the research in the intro at great length, here and at talk:Transcendental Meditation. Has the research changed recently?   Will Beback    talk    19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No definitive conclusions where ever reached. Is all of the TM research with out merit as the lead now suggests?(olive (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Before we get into that can of worms again, what about the proposal to split the research material into a standalone article? That had received some support, IIRC.   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could create another article to cover the TM research, and what remains in this article could be a summary. However, Olive's point on the thrust of the lead implying that the research on TM is useless must be address now. --BwB (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Per agreement I've created Transcendental Meditation research article. Bot should clean up.(olive (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Good, but we also need to remove the content from this article. At the moment, there are two copies.   Will Beback    talk    18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material and left a link. If someone would like to write summary that'd be appropriate. We need to revise the TMR intro, but we can discuss that on the relevant talk page.    Will Beback    talk    20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cavaglion

 * ''An Israeli criminologist, Gabriel Cavaglion, says that in 1987, the report of an Israeli commission of inquiry into cults condemned TM, which had been named by anti-cult groups there to be a cult. However, the same source says the report was “far from being accurate and sophisticated” and that scholars in Israel viewed the report as ’one-sided and negative.’

I'm concerned about this text. We devote as much or more space to attacking the report in general terms than to what it says about TM. There's a huge quote in the footnote that doesn't mention TM at all. Could user:Early morning person, who added this, be so kind as to quote what the source says about the TM technique?  Will Beback   talk    22:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we just forget the whole Cavaglion thing? --BwB (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like EMP added context, but lets wait and see what he says to discuss further.(olive (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, valid question. I have added the only two mentions of TM in the Cavaglion article to the 1st ref. Exec summary: it really doesn't say much about TM specifically. Just that the government report "condemned" TM along with numerous groups as part of a cult scare that was largely fueled by a high level of cultural sensitivity at that time among orthodox religious groups, who had a great deal of political and economic influence.99.241.140.220 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Is "a mockery of objectivity and fairness" the author's language or your characterization of his conclusions? I note that those words are not contained in the quotes you've kindly furnished. Hence the question. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I simplified the language: now "quite lacking in objectivity and fairness" which I think does fairly summarize it.Early morning person (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like we're perhaps devoting too much space to a source that "really doesn't say much about TM specifically". Can't we just summarize it more briefly by saying something like, "TM was included in a list of cults prepared by the Israeli government which was later criticized"?   Will Beback    talk    21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's the right approach. I'd suggest "TM was included in a list of cults in a 1987 Israeli government commission report that was later criticised as lacking objectivity." and just cite the source. The extensive footnotes are unnecessary overkill. It's enough that someone interested in the quotes without ready access to the article can find them on the talk page. Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the editor is going in the opposite direction - reducing the material from the report while leaving the long criticism in place. Could he please comment here on why the suggested text would be unacceptable?   Will Beback    talk    02:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the Israeli text by half, and have also reduced the length of the notes in the ref. I think the added material in the ref gives the reader valuable context. Early morning person (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. But why do we devote so much space to a source that, in your words, "really doesn't say much about TM specifically"? There are dozens of academics who we haven't yet added to this article - many of whom do say much about TM. It just seems like unnecessary space to an unimportant item. And spending more space criticizing the source then reporting its findings is also a problem. Unless someone can explain exactly why we have over five hundred words of text on this in the article, I'm going to paste in Fladrif's proposal.   Will Beback    talk    02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The text in the article is a line and a half. Although Flad has kindly drafted something, I don't see anything wrong with what EMP has edited, now that he's made changes. I'm fine with EMP's edit and see no reason to remove it or change it, to override another editor's editing. Its concise and summarizes pretty clearly what's in the source. Since the wording is pretty strong he quotes it which is appropriate. Why is there a problem with this text? The section itself is pretty strange, since it is completely pejorative. I'll look around for sources to add that give a more complete picture.(olive (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
 * What is strange about the section? It is certainly not "completely perjorative". It is a dispassionate reporting of what reliable sources actually have reported about the findings of various governments about TM. I can understand that the second paragraph, dealing with classification of TM as a "cult" by different government reports might be considered perjorative, simply because of the connotations around the word "cult", but by what stretch of the imagination is it perjorative that three US courts found TM, SCI and TM Sidhi to be a religion? TM hasn't marketed itself in the West as a religion in 40-plus years, but that doesn't mean it is perjorative that the courts found that is was a religion nonetheless. Fladrif (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sticking to the Cavaglion text, it appears that TM is mentioned just twice, once to say that it is a cult group which was targeted by anti-cult groups despite being more likely to accommodate Jewish and Zionist values, and once so say that it was included on the government list. It appears that it is not mentioned at all in the context of the criticism of the list. We devote 19 words to what the paper says about TM (without summarizing it particularly well), and about 28 words to the criticism of the list. In other words, we devote 50% more space to generic criticism of a source than to what the source says about TM. That's the problem. Viewed another way, we're devoting about 50 words to a source which devotes about that much space to TM. We still have dozens more sources to summarize. If we follow that ratio then this article will be twice as long. I don't mind writing that, but I pity the reader who'd have to plow through it. What do editors think of the weight this source deserves?   Will Beback    talk    01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the whole paragraph be cut down to a single sentence: Government reports in West Germany fn, France fn and Israel fn have categorized TM as a cult. Fladrif (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cut it further. I think it fairly summarizes the point, and in a reasonably economical fashion.Early morning person (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC) As to the weight that this source deserves: I see the point, this source does not comment directly on the validity of condemning TM as a cult. However it does comment indirectly. It states that TM was on the list of those condemned, and this high quality source clearly finds fault with the process the commission used to arrive at this conclusion. So I view it as being very relevant to this paragraph on the characterization of TM as a "cult" --IMHO. Early morning person (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel
Here are excerpts from a very long Jerusalem Post article on TM in Israel:

Based on this material, we might have a longer treatment of TM in Israel and the report, either here or in the TMM article.  Will Beback   talk    10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a great deal that is of interest in all that type. If any of it goes into either of the articles, we need to put it into context. As Cavaglion has narrated and explained, the derogatory material written about TM and other human potential groups in Israel in the 80’s and 90’s was part of a documented “moral panic” that was inspired largely by the influence of sensitive and conservative religious groups:


 * “Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, only Orthodox Judaism, Druze, Samaritans (lists a few others) . . . have been officially empowered to deal with matters of personal status and family laws. This may help explain why the penetration of human potential and new religious groups prompted various sectors of Israeli Jewish society to react with such vehemence.”


 * “Jewish religious and ultra-orthodox groups that reacted to cults on the basis of faith and belief were highly influential.”


 * This panic, he explains, included these additional key participants:


 * 1) The media: Cavaglion narrates how the Israeli media starting in the 80’s “contributed to the stereotyped and stylized construction of cults as nefarious.” In contrast to a merely “curious” attitude in the 70’s, swept up by the public scare, “The media adopted a more negative attitude towards cults . . . the attitude shifted to denigration, concern, and alarm.”


 * Note: The article cited above is a good example of the strident anti-‘cult’ tone taken by the Jerusalem Post during this period, in deference to the inflamed public mood.


 * 2) The government: I will not repeat the detailed account of the many flaws in the biased and derogatory Israeli Government report on cults that is posted above on this talk page. Cavaglion explains how the head of the inquiry that produced the report, Ms. Glazer-Ta’asa, was motivated by political purposes and “used the campaign against cults to show that she cared for the citizens of Israel, and to reinforce a traditional alliance with professionals and religious-nationalist factions.”


 * 3) Mental health professionals: In their public comment on the various human potential groups, they adopted the “pathological voice”. “From trance like states to sleep deprivation, post deprogramming syndrome, mind control dissociated states, depression, psychotic deterioration . . . Americanized scientific discourse was co-opted by local professionals wholeheartedly.” This adopted attitude ”led to ‘vague claims’ such as the one made by Dr. Carasso, a well-known, neurologist: ‘we know of many cases, dozens of cases of well functioning people who under the influence of meditation stopped functioning.’ And that made by a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Merton, who declared that, ‘facts in our clinical practice indicate a high percentage of psychotic breakdowns among people who meditate.’”


 * I would also add that if we use negative points from this JP article, we will also, naturally, use points that explain and put them in perspective, such as the point that funds taken out of the country by the TM organization were used for legitimate purposed such as to fund R&D on ayurvedic preparations in Europe. Early morning person (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We should certainly include what Cavaglion has to say about TM. If we want to devote much space to the various views of the Israeli report that don't concern TM directly those might be better placed in other articles. Cavaglion is just one view, and we need to present it neutrally just like any other.   Will Beback    talk    20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mantra
I certainly agree that we should attribute opinions, but this seems like an uncontested fact. I'm sure we could add three dozen sources which say the mantra is given after the puja ceremony. I'm not aware of any source which suggests a different sequence. Is there any particular reason for so much attribution in this section? If we attribute every assertion in every sentence this article will probably grow 50% longer without improving it 50%.  Will Beback   talk    12:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ''According to Walter Martin, the student receives the mantra only after this ceremony has been performed.
 * Safety first. --BwB (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh?   Will Beback    talk    07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing the attribution on this as well as the unnecessary qualifier "only" also unnecessary. I'll take care of that right now.
 * I did include an attribution for the puja words since this is a translation form the Sanskrit and the reader has a right to know where translations come from. I'm not attached to this though, as it may not be critical, so I can remove that if needed. (olive (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks. I don't object to attributing the translation, since no two translations are the same. However It's unhelpful to over-attribute common assertion. We wouldn't say in George Washington something like, "According to Oregon State University history professor Horatio G. Cooper's 1993 biography, The Man from Mount Vernon, Washington was the first president of the United States". In the teaching and mantra section, for example, we should be able to agree to something like these basic assertion: a) that mantras are (or were) said by teachers and the TM officials to be chosen according to an undisclosed method b) that the actual method is based on gender and age c) that mantras are supposed to be kept secret d) that TM can only be learned from a certified TM teacher. Each of those is reported by numerous sources. While our text should be based directly on reliable sources, it isn't necessary to attribute common, undisputed assertions. As a rule of thumb, I think three independent sources saying substantially the same thing qualifies as "common".   Will Beback    talk    09:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your points. I don't agree to not clearly attributing content on how mantras are selected. Multiple sources indicate the mantra and its selection is to be kept private. So, what we have are sources that say mantra selection is private and sources that give information about how the mantras are selected. This is contentious and both side should be attributed so the reader knows that the issue is not clear. As an aside. There are within several traditions situations where confidentiality is required. Dr/patient relationships, priests/ministers/vicars as the most obvious ones. If an MD breaks DR patient confidentiality, I think its fair to ask if that MD can be trusted, and that also means trusted to be telling the truth or giving accurate information. The way we can deal with that here is to make sure that if a level confidentiality has been breached we attribute the information in line to a very specific source.(olive (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
 * These are sensible suggestions. Olive. --BwB (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How many sources should we include in the attribution? I think that attributing a simple assertion to four or ten sources would be a bit silly. "According to religious scholars Joe Smith, Richard Doe, and Mary Moore, authors James McNulty, Bob Bryant, and Sally Strug, and newspaper journalists Petra Kleiter, Kelley Pelletier, and Arnold Flamer, mantras are chosen by...." It'd even be silly to include that many footnotes, but the sources could be combined into single footnotes. The attribution could be generalized, something like, "Numerous sources say..."
 * Is there any dispute that the mantras are chosen from a list according to gender and age?
 * I don't get the point about doctor-patient confidentiality. Is TM a medical procedure?   Will Beback    talk    07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point, but I may be able to add content that will expand and explain. Since you know TM is not a medical procedure, I'll assume your question is rhetorical and is meant for some reason of your own. Maybe you can explain.
 * Your reorganization looks very much like a revert. I find your edit summary to be some what lacking in explaining this. My concern with the organization that you seem to be supporting, is that mantra is explained in detail before the reader is told where the mantra comes into the process of learning the technique. A single sentence seems a weak introduction when we have as much content as we do. The mantra is better explained once it has been given context. How can we reconcile this and the organization of the article you seem to prefer. (olive (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm adding a bunch of new material. Please leave the organization as it is for a day or two while I'm expanding the article. I'm not tied to having the mantra before the teaching - there are reasons for both - and I'd be happy to discuss it later.    Will Beback    talk   


 * No problem I have content to add too. I'll do it in the next few days.(olive (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

Thanks. I'm not sure I understand your analogy to doctor-patient confidentiality - could you explain? I'm also not sure about what content was reverted.  Will Beback   talk    07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an analogy but an example and seems pretty obvious, thus my sense that the question is rhetorical. Let's see if we can address this as we go on.(olive (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC))
 * It may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to me. If you can explain it I'd appreciate it. Otherwise let's drop it.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I took so long in responding. Family situation to take care of. At this point the structure may be fine with the new content. I still have content I'd like to add but will see how it fits. I'll like to look more closely at the article now that I have more time.(olive (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
 * No rush, glad to hear situations are taken care of. As for the material and organization, it's all a work in progress.   Will Beback    talk    07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added most of what I intended to add, but expect to work more tomorrow, adding sources and rationalizing the structure further. In the meantime if there's any feedback feel free to comment.  Will Beback   talk    08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've split out sections on the practice itself, and as last minute improvement, on TM teachers. The latter can grow as I've only added a few handy sources so far. I'm not sure why we never explained the practice before, but a short section is an overdue entry.  Will Beback   talk    12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

TM teachers
It's a new section and there's much more to add. What else do sources say about TM teachers?  Will Beback   talk    13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should include a short list of the most notable TM teachers. I know we can find sources for Prudence Farrow 5059, Paul Horn (musician) 785, John Gray 4802, Mitch Kapor 1218, Mike Love 20337, Jeff Peckman 625, and William Scranton III 306. Maybe a few of those. [I've added the number of page views in December 2010, as an approximation of prominence. ]
 * I've seen various sources for the number of teachers and the growth in the teacher corp, so I think we can devote a paragraph to that. There's even a name for the only West Coast initiator for several years in the 1960s, though that's perhaps too much detail.
 * There are sources which say that teacher training used to occur in India, and that the Beatles visited a teacher training session in 1968.
 * There are several accounts by former teachers. I think keeping them together puts them in context and avoids excess weight, but other approaches might be better.
 * There's the matter of teacher recertification. When was that introduced or became a requirement? Are there any sources for what it involves?

Practice
This section is an effort to describe the technique of TM, but does not give a complete picture and is misleading in parts. All the points are reliably sourced so there is no Wiki policy that prohibit their inclusion in the article, but this section does the reader a disservice in MHO. --BwB (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we all agree that the article should have at least a brief description of the TM technique?
 * I cobbled it together from a few sources. It's reliable and neutral, but it's incomplete I'm sure. We could write another 10,000 words and still be incomplete. Which points are missing or misrepresented?   Will Beback    talk    13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The TM technique consists of silently repeating a mantra while sitting comfortably with eyes closed.." Incomplete description, I think. --BwB (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look for other sources. What's missing from that description? Just saying it's incomplete isn't as helpful as saying how it's incomplete.   Will Beback    talk    21:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TM® practitioners sit in a comfortable posture, with eyes closed, and silently repeat the mantra.
 * That's the core description from Ospina 2007.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Again you have a source, but Ospina does not give the complete description. If TM could be taught from a book, then many such books would have been written describing all the details. So Ospina says something, but not everything. --BwB (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is at least one book that purports to give instruction on how to practice TM, IIRC.   Will Beback    talk    09:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific proposal from improving the material then please share it.   Will Beback    talk    06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I have addressed any of BwB's concern, but I made a small change to the first sentence of the "Practice" section. The idea of the mantra being repeated silently is nowhere contained in the Olsen ref, and from what I have read, is a rather gross and misleading attempt at describing what is actually happening. I have included instead the description of the use of the TM mantra used by the author of Mosby's Comp and Alt Medicine, Lyn Franklin, who is a professor at the U of Alaska specializing in practices of relaxation, meditation, and imagery as complmentary therapies for disease management.Early morning person (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the addition of the Franklin material, but I think it places too much emphasis on the subjective experience:
 * During practice of the TM technique, the meditator experiences a subtle state of thought in the form of a mantra or sound, while sitting comfortably with eyes closed without assuming any special yoga position. 
 * It's be better to first present an objective explanation of what the meditator does, and then describe the hoped-for outcome. As for the description you deleted, in addition to the Olson source (which I disagree was mistaken), the Ospina source says almost exactly the same thing. I suggest that we restore the previous text and move the Franklin description of the subjective experience to a later position in the same paragraph.    Will Beback    talk    20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and add back the sourced material that was there before and add the Ospina paper as a second source, then move the Franklin material to a subsequent sentence. That way we cover all the ground.   Will Beback    talk    08:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Teaching procedure
In this section we have the sentence "Otherwise, all who seek to learn TM are taught it." I feel that this sentence must be attributed as it may not be 100% true that everyone who comes to learn TM is taught the technique, even if they meet the no-drugs policy mentioned in the previous sentence. --BwB (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More than one source contrasts the ease of initiation with TM versus the relative exclusivity of other meditation or yoga techniques. Which sources talk about refusing initiation?   Will Beback    talk    13:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it is in other sources, but am hesitant to say that everyone who wants to learn TM can learn TM. --BwB (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you hesitant? We have one or more sources which say so. The objection is too vague to address.   Will Beback    talk    22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am hesitant" is a just turn of phrase. --BwB (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK.   Will Beback    talk    06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion from "Religion" section

 * Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies, covers Transcendental Meditation in Cults and New Religions'' along with Scientology, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), The Children of God, Branch Davidian, Heaven’s Gate, and Wicca. Transcendental meditation has been accused of "surreptitiously smuggling in forms of Eastern religion under the guise of some seemingly innocuous form of health promotion".

This material was deleted with the edit summary: trivial, uncited, and seems to attribute other person's opinion to a named individual in violation of WP:BLP While I'm sure it can be improved, I don't see how deletion is the right answer.  Will Beback   talk    21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well sourced, accurately summarized and relevant material . Restored. Fladrif (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I though this text put the topic into perspective. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What "perspective"? --BwB (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP
This will need refs

"Notable people trained to teach Transcendental Meditation include: Prudence Farrow, John Gray, Mitch Kapor, and Mike Love." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.   Will Beback    talk    08:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Information sourced to The Guardian
Why was the info sourced to the NY Times deleted as noncompliant, but not the info sourced to The Guardian in the preceding sentence? We had consensus to not use popular media as sources, but then Will added The Guardian info to the article. Seems like we should either remove both, or per WP:NPOV, include both, right? My strong preference is not to use popular media as a source regarding scientific research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but then Will added The Guardian info to the article.'
 * Huh? That material was added a year ago by a different editor, deleted by you, then restored by the original editor. Why did you add the New York Times material if you oppose the use of popular media to describe research?   Will Beback    talk    12:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff where you add it to this article, after there was consensus to remove it from the TM research article. . I added the NY Times article per NPOV, as I said. But my strong preference is to exclude both. TimidGuy (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was just a move between articles. Do you think the supposition that TM can improve student's calmness or receptivity to learning is a medical claim covered by WP:MEDRS? If so we'll need to remove more material than just the Guardian quote. For example, there's material from a Newsweek article that reports "Advocates say that it is a physiological technique that calms the mind and improves grades, attention span and happiness while reducing disruptive behavior." It was added in September.   Will Beback    talk    13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand in what sense it was a "move," since it had been deleted per consensus, and placed in this article after it had been deleted from the research article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion of the Guardian material, nor do I see a broad consensus to delete sourced material that represents a significant point of view. (It wouldn't matter it there were one, consensus can't override NPOV). Is student performance a biomedical issue?    Will Beback    talk    12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Minet.org
I removed this reference.Steps of initiation It is not a RS. --BweeB (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV, a question
Per your surprising comment on TG's user page...which seems odd.

So.... do you think its neutral to cite a comment which states the research doesn't help kids with a comment that says it does, rather than leaving the pejorative statement about the research as the definitive statement. (olive (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Is the "you" in your statement me? By the above logic adding or deleting almost any text could be summarized as "NPOV", but that's not very informative. How does my comment concern this page?   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in lead
I've added the NPOV template, pending resolution of the discussion of the sentences in the lead related to research on health benefits and weight of opinion of Canter and Ernst. See the discussion on Talk: Transcendental Meditation research. TimidGuy (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental Consciousness
From Russell, Chapter 8, "The Fourth State of Consciousness" opening paragraph:

Do we give sufficient weight to the issue of "transcendental consciousness" (TC)? It is listed as the main purpose of TM on the TM website. However we just list in as one of several states in the "Views on consciousness" section. That may be underplaying its importance, as it's apparently more important than the other states, at least for the TM technique. See also the discussion at Talk:TM-Sidhi program. Comments?  Will Beback   talk    07:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not more important than any of the other states nor listed as the main purpose of TM, but is rather a transition state in a way to higher states. I wouldn't support trying to expand content on it without some context, but with that said sure no problem adding material.(olive (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
 * The webpage which you said is definitive mentions TC and none of the others. Is there a different page on that website which mentions the other states? Is it realistically possible to attain those higher states by practicing TM alone? The text in the TM-Sidhi program article says "The purpose of the TM-Sidhi program is to accelerate the benefits gained from the TM technique by training the mind to think from the level of what is called within the TM organization as Transcendental Consciousness, or the fourth state of consciousness". Should we mention the higher states in that article too? What do you mean by "context"?    Will Beback    talk    20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The site does not say TC is the main purpose of TM. TC is a stage in development and as such is no more or less important than waking, dreaming, sleeping the first three. with out which we'd die or the next three which are stabilized and expanded TC, if you will. As with any kind of developmental paradigm, every step depends on the other steps, so writing accurately about one without the context of the others is difficult if  not impossible. We can expand the content in this article to explain the place TC has in human consciousness according to MMY, if we have agreement for that. And perhaps we should deal with this articLe first.  (olive (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
 * OK, so "main purpose" isn't the correct term. But I think this is getting argumentative rather than working toward resolution. Obviously, no one needs TM to reach any of the first three levels of consciousness. As for the top three levels as "stabilized and expanded" versions of TC, that isn't clear in the text at present. The article does say that the fifth state can be achieved through diligent practice, but doesn't say that practitioners can achieve the top two by use of TM alone. Are there good secondary sources for this topic?   Will Beback    talk    23:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will. Main purpose isn't correct at all. If you open a discussion as you did on this term please expect a discussion on it.
 * We are speaking in terms of the nomenclature of a specific technique and of its conceptual framework. Whether the states of consciousness described in this technique with the names given are possible with other techniques is in some ways a non question. These states are not something to be reached, they are inherent to the human nervous system. There are multiple techniques in multiple cultures which may assist in the experience of these states. And there are those who have these experiences with out any formal techniques at all. What  these states are called in other systems, whether the  conceptual framework is  or is not   comparable to the conceptual framework of TM technique and the sources which discuss that is probably another discussion.
 * There are secondary sources that discuss these states, and as well, since we are discussing a specific technique the definitive information on that system must come from those  that created or developed, and teach the system itself. If we want to understand Meisner technique in acting, go to Meisner.(olive (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Let's not belabor "main purpose" I merely wrote that because the intro of the TM-Sidhi article makes it sound like the main purpose, which is why we're here. Let's focus on fixing that by getting it right here. Then we can re-write it there.
 * By "secondary source" I'm excluding MMY's writings, which would be primary sources. We might quote from those briefly for illustration, but the material should be based mainly on secondary sources. If reliable sources connect concepts like TC to concepts in other spiritual traditions we can mention those too, but obviously that should be subsidiary to describing the movement's views. So is the Russell book the best available secondary source? It's quite old and he isn't a scholar. What about the more recent books by Williamson and Goldberg?   Will Beback    talk    07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see there are discussions of TC in Goldberg's American Vedanta, Williamson's Transcendent in America, Shear's Experience of Meditation, and Forsthoefel & Hume's Gurus in America. We don't cite any of them in the current material. Are there any other major sources for this material? If not, I'll start drafting text based on those.  Will Beback   talk    04:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When we are talking about theoretical constructs crated by an individual and we have the sources to refer to those constructs we need to include them as the base line for the information we add. I'm happy to add other content later too if you want to draft something. I'm really busy in RL right now,  but will get back to WP soon.(olive (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
 * By "theoretical constructs" I assume you're referring to TC, CC, GC, etc. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean. I've listed sources (above) which refer to those constructs. While we can always revise later, it's often best to have as many sources on hand when drafting text, so that it can be comprehensive and properly weighted. If there are not other significant secondary sources to add I'll start drafting a description of TC, etc.   Will Beback    talk    19:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * C'mon Will. You don't have control of what are the includable RS sources and what aren't. And primary sources are important and necessary to self define a topic /subject area. An extensive philosophical construct underpins this technique and this should be described per the source of that technique. Then other, and secondary sources are also needed. But I don't agree to exclude either if we want a complete and comprehensive description. If you want to write this fine and thanks, but other editors have a right to be part of this process. Sheesh!  (olive (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't control what sources can be used, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines do. Which other sources do you want included in the drafting (primary or otherwise? I'm trying to get the input of you and anyone else who's interested.   Will Beback    talk    19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course . What policies and guidelines are you concerned about?
 * I have several sources that have good explanations of the 7 states of consciousness. I'd suggest you write and post what you want to and I'll add to it if I have information that is not included. We could cite MMY directly on this as one source. Such a primary source is acceptable to self define the topic. This isn't contentious content. and its straight up theory . We have to get it right.(olive (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC))


 * I think it'd be more productive if we work on a draft together that fully summarizes the sources and gets it "right". Which sources do you suggest adding to cite MMY directly?   Will Beback    talk    20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern is accuracy. We probably don't even have to actually use a primary source like MMY's Science of Being or could use it along with a secondary source. Russel seems to have a fair amount of content on this topic. I haven't looked at it closely but there's Campbell's Seven States of Consciousness. I'm going to be very busy in RL the next while so I'm not sure what I can do at this time, which is one reason I suggest one person write and the other could add anything from sources they have which the other may not have. You mentioned policies and guidelines, What are your concerns?(olive (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks. Primary sources aren't necessarily the most accurate. For example, MMY sometimes speaks in metaphors so translating those requires interpretation. I'm looking at a recent edition of Science of Being and it has a long introduction by Morris. While not independent, it is a secondary interpretation of MMY's views. The Russell and Campbell books are quite old, and they aren't by scholars, if I understand correctly, but they can be used within limits. Scholarly sources should be given the most prominence. I'll track those down and start drafting based on them.   Will Beback    talk    01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The definitive source for the theory behind the TM technique is MMY and his book Science of Being. and we need to either reference it or consult it for accuracy. We're back to the beginning. You draft a copy and I'll add content if I think it needs to be there and if its appropriate per Wikipedia. While Scholarly sources are good so are other published sources and they may be of equal or greater value . Theoretical and philosophical information is not subject to the same concerns that older research is. (olive (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
 * That's a bit like saying the definitive reference for the Bible is the Bible. On one level that's true, but we should not base an encyclopedia article based on editors' interpretations of the book. As for scholarly source, they are clearly preferable to any other sources, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:V, WP:IRS, and especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP. More recent sources are also preferred over older sources. I suggest, as before, that we should only use MMY's books to illustrate points or interpretations made in secondary sources. I'm sure Morris does an adequate job of presenting the official interpretation.   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a quick scan of Science of Being. It looks like the term "transcendental consciousness" only appears a few times. The longest discussion appears to be under the heading "Fulfillment of Psychology" (pp 260-262), with a shorter discussion a little later in "Physiological Approach to God Realization" (p.291), and a couple of passing mentions earlier in the book. Is that correct?   Will Beback    talk    05:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on that, I'm not sure how much value the SoB/AoL has for this material on TC. Morris's introduction is probably more useful.   Will Beback    talk    05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the definitive word on TC, and is more akin to reading/sourcing Kant as a basis for  an article on Kant's philosophy and metaphysics. I'll leave you to write since you've volunteered to do so.(olive (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't want to sit down to write until I have all of the best sources at hand. So back to SoB/AoL - is there something there that I'm missing? He spends so little time on the topic that I'm confused. Those few pages are the definitive description of TC?   Will Beback    talk    22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitive isn't about length its about who did the writing and their relationship with the content. I suggest that only with  reading the book will you  understand TC as well as to give you the context necessary to write about it with authority. This conversation is going around in circles. Best sources seems to be a matter of opinion. I suggest that there are multiple sources that will give you different kinds of information. As I said I have no attachment to any given source only that the content be accurate. You are asking the same questions over and over again. Since my answers apparently don't satisfy you I suggest you go ahead and write. I don't have anything more to say at this time. And if you don't want to write the content I would be happy to. Since this is a collaborative project, I don't give up my right to  add or correct content. (olive (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
 * It's just that you're saying a book is the definitive source, but it appears to only devote a few pages to the topic. I asked if I was correct in that and you haven't pointed to any other parts of it that I've missed, so I presume my initial assessment was correct. No one is saying that you can't participate - just the opposite, this whole thread has been about asking for input.   Will Beback    talk    21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's just a tentative bit of input, for whatever it's worth: I'm not so sure that the Maharishi's The Science of Being and Art of Living is the definite (primary) source for the theory behind the TM tecnique, although this might be an official TM movement standpoint. It can easily be seen that the theory, or the Maharishi's philosophy, has changed over the years, both terminology-wise and content-wise. Some of the later crucial terms are not extant in The Science of Being.


 * The introduction of Vedic Science in 1980(?) marks a shift in the philosophy, with new terms such as Rishi, Devata, Chandas, and Samhita of Rishi, Devata and Chandas, used to underpin a clearly more monistic and "Brahman-oriented" ontology. In this new ontology there is little room for the older dualistic terms found in The Science of Being such as the absolute, the relative and transcending.


 * For primary and close-to-primary sources with current terms, it would probably be relevant to check the references used in dissertations in Vedic Science from Maharishi University of Management. To my knowledge there has not yet been published a good scholarly work that analyses the Maharishi's philosophy historically.
 * Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions. I'm still compiling sources for this. If anyone has specific papers or books that are good please list them here.   Will Beback    talk    03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Today's edits
I have gone through this article today and made a series of small edits with the intention of improving the flow and readability of the text. Very little changes to the text have been made - mostly combining sentences, moving text, creating new subsections, etc. I believe further work is needed to continue the improvement process and welcome input and participation from other editors. --BwB (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove opening sentences from Marketing section
I propose that we remove the opening sentences form the Marketing section: "The late 1950s and the 1960s saw increasing interest in consciousness raising and mind expansion. Alan Watts popularized Zen Buddhism while Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and Timothy Leary spread the gospel of LSD." They are not directly about the TM technique. --BwB (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no responses to my question above dated March 10, can I go ahead and remove these sentences? --BwB (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The text you are referring to provides context for MMY's place in the New Age Movement, and also best summarizes what is in the source, so I'd prefer not to remove it, but I'm open to discuss of course.(olive (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

Not accurate per the source
This:"TM's appeal has been described as lying more in its ability to truly relax without the aid of chemical assistance than its scientific research." is not an accurate summary of the source. I'd like to reword this somewhat for the lead. Also we might want to use the source in other parts of this or other TM articles since its quite comprehensive and carries a lot of information. I haven't checked yet to see if we've already used it elsewhere. (olive (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC))
 * It seems like the source says just the opposite of what the sentence you've cited says:
 * "TM, as its followers call it, is rapidly moving from kooky margin to respectable mainstream thanks largely to a burgeoning body of scientific research which indicates that regular meditators can expect to enjoy striking reductions in heart attack, stroke and early mortality (as much as 47 per cent, according to one study). And the apparent benefits don't stop there: according k to a pilot study just published in the US journal Military Medicine, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars showed a 50 per cent reduction in their symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after eight weeks of TM." -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe read further. The author is talking about "appeal" which she says later in the articles comes out of TM's relaxation benefits.(olive (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC))
 * I did adjust the sentence in the lead per my concern.(olive (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

Proposal to remove sentence
I'd like to remove the sentence below in bold from the lead. It is redundant info, in my opinion. Any objections?
 * Maharishi Mahesh Yogi taught his meditation technique in a series of world tours beginning in 1957. From the late 1960s through the mid 1970s, both the Maharishi and TM received significant public attention in the USA, especially among the student population. During this period, a million people learned the technique, including well-known public figures. Worldwide, as many as six to ten million people are reported to be practitioners of the TM technique. Notable practitioners include The Beatles, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 14:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The one million number refers to during the 60's and 70's time period. The next number is to date. So I don't think the sentence is redundant?(olive (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe not redundant but it is repetitive as it gives similar info as the next two sentences. Also the lead is a summary and we don't need names and numbers for every decade. If you don't like the idea of removal then how about a rewrite since all three sentences are cited by the same source (Craze): The only problem with this new text (above) is that Deepak learned TM in the 80's I think. Can we substitute his name with someone else who did learn in the 60-70's like Shirley McClain, Donovan, Mike Love, or Clint Eastwood? (Clint Eastwood is ranked #20 on Forbes list of top stars.) So it seems that Mike Love and Donovan are associated with TM as much or more than Chopra and they learned in the 60-70's.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed Text - From the late 1960s through the mid 1970s, the Transcendental Meditation technique received significant public attention in the USA, especially among the student population. During this period, a million people learned the technique, including many well known figures such as The Beatles, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow. Worldwide, as many as six to ten million people are reported to be practitioners.
 * Sydney Morning Herald cites Shirley McClain, Mia Farrow
 * The LA Times: Shirley McClain, Donovan, Mia Farrow
 * USA Today and CBS News cites: Mike Love, Clint Eastwood, Deepak Chopra
 * Bloomberg cites: Mike Love, Donovan, Clint Eastwood
 * Reuters cites: Mike Love, Donovan, Mia Farrow
 * The New York Times: Mike Love, Donovan, Mia Farrow, Deepak Chopra
 * Fox News: Mike Love, Clint Eastwood, Deepak Chopra
 * The Telegraph: Donovan, Mia Farrow
 * Totals: McClain (2), Chopra (3), Eastwood (3), Farrow (5), Donovan (5), Love (5)

How about something like:

I'm not attached to which well known figures are added but a range might be good ... men, women, and  across a range of time....(olive (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
 * This seems like a r3asonable proposal. --BwB (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also OK with the rewrite Olive has proposed above but how about adding, Mike Love and Donovan since they are cited consistently by top level sources (see above) as notable TM'ers.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We've had editor agreement in the past to leave it at three so I'd like to stick with that. Perhaps, remove Mia Farrow and add either Mike Love or Donovan.(olive (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
 * I don't think we should remove Mia Farrow as her name is often mentioned in sources. If there is prior agreement for three names and a link to the List of TM practitioners page then we should stick with that. However, I still support the proposed revision by Olive seen above. Any objections to changing to that text?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I OK with this suggestion. --BwB (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source?
In July 2010 Jmh649/Doc James added this sentence to the Characterizations/Religion section if the Transcendental Meditation article (which was later moved to this article by Will Beback when the TM article was split): The above sentence was extrapolated from page 7 in a section called Defining Religion. The paragraph within that section reads as follows: So I ask the following questions:
 * "Transcendental meditation has been accused of "surreptitiously smuggling in forms of Eastern religion under the guise of some seemingly innocuous form of health promotion". The sentence is cited to: A Reader In New Religious Movements by Chryssides and Wilkins.
 * (bold added by me) "Thus the Church of Scientology has emphatically asserted that it is a religion, while Transcendental Meditation (TM) has equally emphatically rejected claims to religious status. There are vested interest involved in such claims, as well as genuine convictions: the Church of Scientology has perceived the tax advantages in being counted as a religion, whereas Transcendental Meditation has perceived that religious status would prevent its techniques from being taught in American schools, on account of the strict separation of between religion and state. Critics of NRM’s, likewise, are not so concerned to find academic answers to the question of religion’s definition: anti-cultists can claim that some of the ‘cults’ are deceptive, masquerading as religions when they are more akin to business companies or political organizations, or that they are surreptitiously smuggling in forms of Eastern religion under the guise of some seemingly innocuous technique of self-improvement or health promotion. Such criticisms have been made variously of the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church and Transcendental Meditation." (page 7)
 * Why are we sourcing to a 430 page book that has only four sentences using the words Transcendental Meditation? [Three of the four sentences are shown above]
 * Why is a generalized statement about Scientology, the Unification Church and TM, that is given in the book as part of a larger discussion on "Defining Religion", being taken out of context and misrepresented as being specifically about TM?
 * Why did the editor ignore these sentences in the source?
 * "Thus the Church of Scientology has emphatically asserted that it is a religion, while Transcendental Meditation (TM) has equally emphatically rejected claims to religious status." page 7
 * "Transcendental Meditation and the Unification Church have expressed to INFORM [Information Network Focus on Religious Movements] a desire to try to help resolve misunderstandings or other problems that might arise between their members and their member's parents as a result of the former's involvement in their movement." page 377

The sentence and its implied wrongful attribution to Professor Douglas Cowan was previously removed by visiting editor User:Steve Dufour and then restored after a  superficial discussion in which Doc James says: "Yes I though this text put the topic into perspective" --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have previously attributed your inability to find and understand words on a page of text in black and white right in front of you to bad eyesight, so I'll cut you some slack, but not much. This looks suspiciously like your repeated reversion of citations in the TM-Sidhi article to remove sources that specifically discussed the program while you repeatedly claimed, in defiance of the plain words on the page, that it didn't. The quotation is accurate, fairly presented and relevant:


 * "Critics of NRM’s, likewise, are not so concerned to find academic answers to the question of religion’s definition: anti-cultists can claim that some of the ‘cults’ are deceptive, masquerading as religions when they are more akin to business companies or political organizations, or that they are surreptitiously smuggling in forms of Eastern religion under the guise of some seemingly innocuous technique of self-improvement or health promotion. Such criticisms have been made variously of the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church and Transcendental Meditation." (page 7)


 * Do you really claim that the quote is not talking specifically about TM? Your claim that the statement is wrongly attributed to Cowen is nonsense; it isn't. It is attributed to the source in which it is actually contained. On what basis to you claim that a "430 page book" is being improperly cited, when the quote is attributed directly to the correct page in that book? This is a nonsensical set of objections. Fladrif (talk)


 * First I'd like to ask you to please restrict your comments to the content and avoid personalizing this discussion per WP:TALK. Thanks. My point, in case it wasn't clear, is that the book is 430 pages long and contains only 4 sentences that mention the words Transcendental Meditation. So the book is not about TM. The chapter is called New Religions: Concepts and Issues and is not about TM. The subsection of the chapter is entitled 'Defining Religion' and is not about TM. The fact is, TM is mentioned only in passing and only when lumped together with two other NRM's. So not only is it a poor choice for a source, when there are entire books dedicated to the topic of TM, but the information implied in the current sentence: ""Transcendental meditation has been accused of "surreptitiously smuggling in forms of Eastern religion under the guise of some seemingly innocuous form of health promotion" is taken out of context and cherry picked to present a negative POV while ignoring other content in the source that supports TM. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source specifically discusses TM, so it is hardly mentioned in passing, and the notion that a book needs to be "about" the subject of the Wikipedia article to be a source for that article, when it contains relevant information is nonsense made up out of whole cloth. The quote is by no means taken out of context, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the use of this as a source nor with the manner in which it has been used in the article. If you are proposing that the source be used as support for the statement that TM denies being a religion, without the context that the same represents a vested economic interest in trying to avoid being banned from public schools, and that critics contend that it is smuggling religion into schools under the guise of merely being a technique, it is you who is trying to cherry pick a statement out of context to mean exactly the opposite of what the authors are saying. Fladrif (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources removed
Today I removed two sources as follows: Does anyone disagree with the removal of either of these sources? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1914 to 2008)
 * The source cites the Foreward of a book by the Maharishi but the Foreward (and the book) does not mention either the birth or death year of the subject. It does say however that the Maharishi began teaching TM in 1957 in contradiction to the date of 1955 which appears in the same sentence of the TMT article.
 * The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of the practices recommended in the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.
 * The source is primary. Its a single, dubious, sentence spoken by a MVAH representative during a commission hearing: "I am the West Coast coordinator for the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, including the transcendental meditation technique." I don't see this as reliable and don't see the need for this source since I've added a reliable secondary sources and there are others (books) if we want them.
 * Think it is OK to remove the first as it does not contain the text in the article. However, I do not think it is worth removing the second, even though it is a primary source. I think it is somewhat common knowledge that TM is part of MVAH. I will add another source that TM is an aspect of MVAH. --BwB (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are saying the same thing. I'm not suggesting removing any text, I've just replace the above sources with more reliable ones because, as you have said there are a number or secondary sources that say that TM is part of MVAH. I don't think we need to keep the the second source (transcript of the congressional hearing) as it is inadequate and unnecessary.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)