Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

My Evaluation of Recent Changes

Overall, recent changes to this article have improved its organization. It is now clearer, cleaner, and more professional-looking.

Unfortunately, it now contains less information and is highly skewed towards criticism of Transcendental Meditation:

• It gives details about lawsuits and court decisions against Transcendental Meditation, yet says very little about how the technique is practiced and its many benefits. One would have to follow all the scientific research links to discover just the few of its benefits that happen to have been studied. The most egregious omission is an explanation of how transcending is different from ordinary relaxation. Some psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians routinely recommend Transcendental Meditation to patients with anxiety and stress-related illness, yet one would not discover this important fact from the article.

• It fails to mention alternatives to Transcendental Meditation: other organizations that teach transcending techniques.

• It fails to mention the fact that Transcendental Meditation has the highest course fee of any self-improvement method that is presented as meditation.

• It fails to mention that both Transcendental Meditation and TM are registered trademarks. Such usage does not protect the legal rights of the trademark holder and weakens the trademark.

• It cites Cult Awareness Network as an authority, in spite of its current status as subservient to a religious organization which itself has some cult-like aspects.

In summary, although the form of the article has been improved, its content, in my opinion, is still woefully inadequate in terms of coverage of the subject.

One reason for this may be that editors of this article have specific points of view which they want reflected in the article, instead of balanced, objective, and factual content. I have seen small attempts by me and others to improve this article result only in eventual deletion. Controversy is one thing, but "managing" an article to prevent improvement is quite another.

Disclosure: I am president of a volunteer, nonprofit organization offering alternative instruction in transcending. David spector (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for your insights . Its always good to have an evaluation from someone who hasn't been around for awhile. I think you make some good points and some are points that may have reasonable explanation.

• Since this article is about a very particular mediation technique that claims to facilitate transcending, rather than about transcending in general, information should be limited to that technique. If the article were to open its doors to techniques that claim help to create transcending it would be enormously long since there are many such techniques. As well making the connection between TM and other techniques and transcending is original research. There is an article on meditation and other technique information could be included there. As well links that are considered spam links and that link to a site selling the technique can't be used. In the case of TM since the article is about TM itself the article may in some ways self define by linking to information by and about itself. Spam links are not good sources in any case however, and are best left out.

• Yes, many editors have worked hard to try and make this article more Wikipedia compliant. At the moment the article is skewed towards the negative especially if one compares the article to mainstream news sources which are predominantly positive on the topic of TM. Using mainstream sources should be a good reference point for determining the weight of the article. However, not all editors have this view.

• Noting the connection to Scientology would be original research and would be disallowed. The bigger question is the use of the information on CAN itself . There are more reliable sources out there, but its worth noting that hits on TM and cult are, in Google news archives, few and so the mention of it although insisted on by editors in the past, may be a minor fringe note, and possibly should be excluded, or at the very least reduced in size. However, part of writing of this very contentious article has been to include considerations from all editors. And believe me this would be a contentious point.

• Noting that TM has the highest course fee is also OR, and is not compliant. Such an inclusion requires that the editor make comparisons and then include the results of those studies .... OR. The reader must do that work himself of locating course fees of different techniques and make those comparisons. There were editors who felt including the course fee for TM was a kind of advertising, so at one point that as per discussion was removed. That information I believe was recently re added.

• You're right the trademark has been removed... not sure when but it should be readded.

• Yes, your points about omissions in terms of benefits is a huge omission, as is more detail and how the technique works, but if you check the archives you'll see that just getting the article to this point has been an enormous struggle. The more abstract information has been objected to by other editors, and so was either removed or or not added in the first place. These points have been discussed and hopefully can be addressed again in the future. I urge you to look at the discussion page archives if you want a real sense of how this article has been "forged". There is something to be said for simplicity and using concrete language that the average reader with no knowledge of meditation techniques can understands well, so that has to be taken into consideration.

• If you want to help make the changes you have concerns with I urge you to stick around and join the discussions. Thanks David for you input.(olive (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Good points from both Olive and David. If either party, or another editor wants to folow up on anything I would suggest that we take each point in a seperate section otherwise there are too many cross conversations and nothing gets settled. You have both brought up several good points but also ones that in the past have been quite contentious. So a word to the wise; break it down into parts and discuss one section at at time if you want to make progress. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased (and pleasantly surprised) by your sensible responses to my evaluation. This is a big change from what I encountered in some of my previous visits here.

Having spent over six months in teacher training with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and having taught over 100 people, I do know something about Transcendental Meditation (although I do understand and usually agree with the prohibition against OR). I am certainly willing to contribute here, but I am not willing to spend time researching and writing only to find my contributions deleted.

If someone wants to make a list of specific points that can be added safe from deletion (particularly positive points specific to TM), I would be willing to research/and or write the material. David spector (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

David we welcome you to the article. In recent months there has been a general consensus that because the article is so contentious, that we always bring up proposed changes, additions or deletions here first. Then after proper research, discussion and often times consensus, we write the copy, get it approved here and then add it to the article. This avoids the unpleasant experience of getting one's copy reversed etc. Its quite a laborious process but with some many editors with different points of view that is what we have found to work. You are welcome to particpate in all or part of that process. All the editors try to be as neutral as possible and civility is highly prized here. So jump in as you feel you have the time and inclination. --Kbob (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your pleasant welcome. I look forward to helping improve the article as ways to do so become possible. David spector (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made some minor grammatical changes and some changes in punctuation. I am willing to be of help where I can in the development of this site. Bigweeboy 5/12/2009

Thanks Bigeeboy and welcome. This has been a very contentious article so we've arrived at a system for editing in which anything but minor edits are discussed and agreed on here first before we enter them into the article itself. I see that you are discussing your concerns and that seems to me to be an excellent way to start.(olive (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the welcome Olive. I am very new to Wiki and I find the discussion here very interesting, and am learning alot about the protocols of editing and comments, especially "neutrality", etc. Hope to help, where possible. Bigweeboy

I'm not seeing any useful discussion on the issues I have mentioned here, and must admit I'm disappointed. Olive has stated that this article is contentious, so I was expecting much more of a response and consequent improvement of the article. I like the idea of deciding on changes on this Talk page, but not much seems to be happening. Let's work together to get this article improved, so it actually helps the reader really understand Transcendental Meditation. Its current focus on lawsuits and controversy is largely irrelevant to the nature of TM (we might consider moving all the controversy details to a subpage). David spector (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

David. I would suggest you begin this discussion by selecting one change at a time that you feel would improve the article. We are bound by policy and guidelines of course so they will certainly help dictate the outcomes. Unless very specific points are brought up its hard to bring focus to any discussion.

As a start: I haven't seen any Wikipedia articles where controversy is moved onto subpages. Articles are meant to show the range of information on a topic as per the mainstream view (in most cases) and as per WP:WEIGHT. I agree that the lawsuits for example - 4 in 50 years- are given undue weight, however, we do have to deal with consensus among editors. I would think the best way of proceeding is to, as I mentioned above, introduce one concern at a time.... possibly the actual change you would be interested in making and then allow time for discussion. Be sure to actively include yourself in the discussion. :o) Thanks David for your input.(olive (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC))(olive (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Think is this a great suggestion Olive. One thing I would suggest would be to put more things in the "History" section to give an overall sense of the major things that happened to TM over the 50+ years. This would then put the "UK Elections" item in perspective. Bigweeboy 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a copy of this comment to History section revisited. Lets move the discussion there. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

II have just recently started working on Wikipedia, and found this article and started following your discussion of the "History" section with great interest. I hope you don't mind my adding my two cents, but I have a feeling from what I just read that quite a bit was removed from this section and it now seems a bit empty to me. I am wondering if anyone is planning to add more information, for instance, do we know how many people have learned TM worldwide? How many centers exist up to date? And what about TM in countries other that the UK, Anything relevant? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

History section revisted

Copied comments by Bigweeboy from above thread on "2005 British Elections":

I am new to the whole debate here. Also, I am not familiar with the history of the TM organization. However, it seems strange to me that there is so much discussion of this one point under the "History" section of this article. From reading the article I learn that the Maharishi started to teach TM in the late 1950's. Elsewhere, we learn that TM is part of a global organization. So, given the fact that TM has been around for 50 years, and is an international thing, why are there so few items in the "History" section? Surely some more newsworthy things happened to TM in these 50 years? Why then give so much importance to the British election item? Perhaps more items could be added to the History section. Bigweeboy 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you bring up some relevant points about the history section:

I agree that in relation to the entire history of the TM movement, the British election is relatively insignificant. The space and emphasis it is given here violates WP:Weight in my opinion. However, there was agreement from most editors to include it as it is.

Because it was becoming unwieldy in terms of its length and complexity of subject matter, this article became with the agreement of the editors editing at the time, just about the TM technique itself, and not the other programs and aspects of the so-called TM organization. Some of those aspects were split off and had more than enough material to develop into articles of their own. The larger and trickier issue is, what information is about the history of the organization and its many programs, and what information is about the history of the technique itself. In actual fact, creating a delineation as we have here is probably somewhat artificial since these two areas probably intersect often. The alternative is a long complex history section, and probably a lot of long drawn out discussion.

Recently the topics that come up for consideration as parts of the history section have been discussed individually and then added as per agreements from as majority of the editors here.

We have also been trying to maintain a, "discuss first then add later" procedure because the article has been so contentious.

I personally can't see opening up the history section to include all of the history of the entire organization and its many programs.I suspect this would cause a lot of confusion. Right now things are pretty straight forward . If its about the technique itself it goes here. If its about another aspect of the organization, there is probably another article for it. My take on the situation anyway.(olive (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Copy from "Brit. Elections 2005" (Bigweeboy)

Think is this a great suggestion Olive. One thing I would suggest would be to put more things in the "History" section to give an overall sense of the major things that happened to TM over the 50+ years. This would then put the "UK Elections" item in perspective. Bigweeboy 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the next step is to find information you want to add.... I think we have to make sure that what we add pertains to the technique itself rather than more general history of the TM organization. Thanks Bigweeboy. I think this is an excellent step in the development of the article(olive (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

I also feel the History section is unduly weighted. Wiki policy WP:WEIGHT states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". At the present time I do not feel that standard is being upheld in the History section. That said, we should proceed in terms of specifics instead of having a general philosophical discussion. To me what is obviously missing from the History section is the immense growth of popularity of TM in the 1970's. Particularly the participation of the youth culture, the many famous individuals who publicly participated in TM and the Maharishi's appearances on national television, and cover of TIME magazine. These events received mainstream press and media attention and is clearly one of the most notable aspect of TM's history in the USA. --Kbob (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with this approach. Maybe you could do something like a timeline, e.g. 1959 The Maharishi starts teaching TM in USA... 1961 TM first taught in Australia..... 1968 Beatles go to study TM with the Maharishi in India, etc., etc. This way you could cover all the major noteworthy events in the history of TM in a very factual way, with reference to the events from the mainstream media, without taking up a lot of space. Bigweeboy (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Split with Beatles? TM leader accused of sexual molesting Mia Farrow (claimed only, but reason for the Beatles "falling out"? John Lennon writes " Sexy Sadie in protest to TM's leaders claimed behavior? Price of TM training increases from a few pound to 2500? Former TM trainers leave group due to pricing other practices? Former TM trainers say mantra given based on age of trainee (found in academic text books) etc, etc? This could get interesting. The7thdr (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it could get interesting. However, I feel we need to discuss what may be "significant" event in the development and history of TM. You seem be mentioning some of the "sensational" things that happened over the years (I don't know anything about these), but agian, they may not be important given the 50+ year history of TM. We can debate. Bigweeboy (talk), 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, this article is about the technique so history should focus on the technique rather than on TM Organization history. There is a delineation there we have to keep track of.(olive (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)) from below:

I think your right. This was an important time in the history of TM. Should someone write something up and then we could look at it here. I could do it, or perhaps Kbob would like to.(moved comment).(olive (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree, we need to keep this discussion and the proposed changes in context. First context is that this article is about TM not other related products, services or programs or the so called "TM organization" which in itself is Original Research WP:OR. Second we are discussion the History of the article topic. Thirdly we are discussing that additions or deletions of the current History section should be considered in the context of the Wiki policies that concern weight, notability and availability of reliable sources. In that context I have suggested that we include some points on the popularity of TM during the 70's which received widespread media attention and are under represented in the current history section. Having said that I will write something and post it here for all to consider. Won't that be fun! :-) --Kbob (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The notion of a TM Movement or organization is not original research but used in many textbooks and papers. I care neither way, but felt worth mentioning. The7thdr (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've come across numerous mentions of a "TM movement" in sources. It'd be logical to create an article on that topic, which would allow this article to focus solely on the technique.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I've seen the term "TM Movement" used it refers to the larger organization of which TM is an experiential aspect rather than an intellectual aspect. The term is actually not correct and is usually a catch phrase often used by the press for describing this larger organization. If I remember we went through some discussion on this before trying to work out what to call this organization for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Possibly its the Global Country of World Peace or, Maharshi Vedic Education Development Corporation. As well, there are multiple subsets of that organization that would make an article very long. Many of the programs wouldn't have much in the way of Wikipedia compliant sources either. I think the name changed at different times as well creating more confusion. I agree that there should be a kind of Mother article for all of the "TM" programs.... just not sure how to deal with. Any suggestions.(olive (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

I think I understand what Kbob was getting at when he called this idea for TM Organization/Movement as OR. As I said above there is no information on what that term means and or includes... and its generally used as a catch phrase to define the parts of a larger organization. What and who is that organization actually has never been clearly defined at least in the press, and I'm not sure even by the organization itself. So we by collecting material and saying this is the "TM Movement" would be creating something new... OR. Its a dilemma.(olive (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Suffice it to say that plenty of reliable sources refer to such a movement. If no one else gets around to writing the article on it I may do so myself.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for sure... There is such a movement. My point is, what is it actually called and what does it include? Does my point make sense? If the press defines or creates something that the organization does not, that is, the organization has an official name and describes what the name includes, is that element of accuracy worth anything. As I remember we tried to work out what the organization actually called itself, and how it defined itself and that was unclear as well, maybe in part due to the fact that names have changed and the organization has itself changed its organizational structures many times in the 50 years or so of its history. I might consider trying to put something together based on what the organization says about itself .... but have no desire to tackle trying to define and write about "TM Movement". Feel free, and good luck. (olive (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Trademark

I made a change on who holds the TM trademark, but I may be wrong on that .... so I'm checking on it in the next few days, and will correct it if its wrong. Thanks(olive (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

The official TM web site [3] (click link at bottom of the page) says: "® Transcendental Meditation, TM, TM-Sidhi, Maharishi Ayur-Veda, Maharishi Ayurveda, Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi Global Construction, Maharishi Yoga, Maharishi Yagya, Maharishi Vedic Astrology, Maharishi Jyotish, Maharishi Gandharva Veda, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, Maharishi Instant Relief, Instant Relief, Maharishi Rejuvenation, Maharishi Rasayana Program, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Corporate Development Program, Consciousness-Based, Maharishi Vedic University, Maharishi Vedic School, Maharishi Academy of Total Knowledge—High School for Leadership, Maharishi Vedic Center, Maharishi Ayur-Veda School, Maharishi Ayur-Veda University, Maharishi Ayur-Veda College, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Medical Center, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Medical Center, Maharishi Vedic Medical Center, Maharishi Medical College, Maharishi Vedic, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Vedic Psychology, Maharishi Self-Pulse, Maharishi Heaven on Earth, Maharishi Center for Excellence in Management, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Master Management, Natural Law Based Management, Maharishi Corporate Revitalization Program, Maharishi Global Administration through Natural Law, Maharishi Vedic Development Fund, Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Purusha, Purusha, Thousand-Headed Mother Divine, Mother Divine, Ideal Girls' School, 24 Hour Bliss, Spiritual University of America, Breath of Serenity, Maharishi Amrit Kalash, Maharishi College of Vedic Medicine, Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Observatory, Vastu Vidya, Maharishi Vastu, Time Zone Capital, Council of Supreme Intelligence, Prevention Wing of the Military, are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and used under sublicense." --Kbob (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob, Yes, I have that but there is apparently another factor to consider that I am looking into.(olive (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC))--Kbob (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your right. This was an important time in the history of TM. Should someone write something up and then we could look at it here. I could do it, or perhaps Kbob would like to.(olive (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

One would need to be careful I would suspect. Including other TM "products" leads the article away from being about the meditative process and back to what it originality was about; the TM "movement"/company products The7thdr (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, good point. Was not implying that any of the above 'products' should be included I just took the entire copy direct from the Official web page without any OR editing. --Kbob (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Olive, I notice the trademark ref has been changed back to Maharishi Foundation. The current reference for this statement goes to an MUM page which states that the holder of the trademarks is MVED. Can you clarify this? --Kbob (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kbob. I checked around and found Maharishi Foundation but didn't find a compliant reliable reference stating it owned the trademark. I did however find a ref stating MVEDC does own the trademark. For our purposes, I think we have to go with the sourced information. In actual fact I'm not sure why this information is needed anyway. The average reader probably doesn't care. I would suggest that we simply add the trademark symbol to the "TM" within the article, remove the "trademarked to...", and source I just added, and add a link to that source in the external link section. Does anyone object to that?(olive (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Proposed Addition to the History Section

Beginning in 1968 a number of celebrities reported using the technique. These individuals included members of music groups such as The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as other pop culture icons such as Shirley Maclaine, Mia Farrow, Joe Namath, Donovan, Clint Eastwood and Deepak Chopra. In 1975, the Maharishi, appeared with Merv Griffin on his highly rated talk show and Transcendental Meditation became a “full blown craze” according to Time Magazine, eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries. ........Suggestions? Comments? --Kbob (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the section in of itself, as long as it is verifiable information. However, are you planning to list celebrities that learned TM in the 60's and 70's only, or do you plan to continue further? I hear Howard Stern is endorsing TM quite a bit these days, and there may be others; how close to the present time can the "History" section go? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with stating that Howard Stern and Robin Quivers practice TM? Wikipedia should reflect truth, not a POV. Furthermore, there are lots of other articles that include current information, lots. David spector (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points Luke, however the purpose of the proposed sentences is to illustrate the significant surge in popularity that occurred in the late 60's and 70's and not to list every celeb who ever learned TM. Certainly there many recent ones like Stern, Seinfeld etc. We are trying to illustrate an historical event not create a current list of celebs. At least that is my opinion. Other editors can weigh in here too. --Kbob (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Luke's point brings up the basic difficulty. We have to make sure that what we are doing is chronicling the history of the technique rather than the history of the organization and the tricky thing will be to decide where that line begins and ends.

I think your addition is fine, Kbob and because you distinctly tie it to those using the technique, its appropriate. Why don't we start there. Luke's idea might be OK too eventually. We also have to not weight the article in a way that makes it sound like an advert for TM.(olive (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

OK, I will wait another day or two to see if other editors have comments before adding. Also I am adding a misc. ref to the bottom of the page that is unrelated to this topic. --Kbob (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hi David, didn't see your comment. The proposed sentences are to document an historical event ie significant rise in popularity that occurred in the late 60's and 70's. If you or Luke or others can locate reliable sources like news and magazine articles, from that period, than we can add any names mentioned therein. Wiki requires objectivity and proper sources so I limited myself to the names in the articles I cited. Also, please note that I am citing notable, mainstream sources such as USA Today and the LA Times. That said, there is certainly no blanket reason why we can't include Stern, Seinfeld, Laura Dern or whoever. We just have to make sure we are staying within the context of History of the technique of TM and also not making the article an advertisement. So with that in mind please proceed with research and let us know what you find. I hope that makes sense.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry David I missed your comment too.

I'll play the devil's advocate here and warn that we can't just start adding a lot of information without taking into account WP:Weight in terms of the article itself, but also in terms of mainstream sources on TM. For example, celebrities are not necessarily notable in themselves because they start TM. There was s surge in the 70's for TM and part of that surge was that some celebrities along with many other people began meditation. Noteworthy is the surge but not necessarily the individuals. The celebrity individuals may be mentioned as examples of a certain group of people who started TM, but we don't need to add all of the names of all of the celebrities we find... not that anyone is suggesting that....To do so in my mind pads the article with celebrity names and sounds an awful lot like endorsements.

If we look at Google news archives, we can get a sense of how notable a subject is in the press. We find 7 hits for Jerry Seinfeld and TM, 429 for David Lynch and TM, and 58 for Robert Schneider and TM. Schneider is an MD who has done significant amounts of research on TM. Who of these is notable. We probably wouldn't add Schneider as notable in himself, and so we have to question why we would add Seinfeld.(olive (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

For what its worth Clint Eastwood, Mary Tyler Moore and Howard Stern are mentioned in this article--Kbob (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olive. I think we should stick with those most notable and representative of the 'upsurge' of interest. My guess would be that Beatles, Donovan and Deepak would be the top three. Then we could pick 2-3 more from the remaining list and include Howard Stern and others on the list to be considered if there are suitable sources to back them up. --Kbob (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got much time for this at the moment but this is really going down the wrong track for this article and assure you it will lead to inclusion of the Beatles incident, sexy sadie incident, et al. I not that many of the "controversial" religions on listed in wiki have to spend most of their time fending of criticism (see Scientology, fundamentalist Christianity, et al) you have a enough to worry about already rather than adding to it. The celebrity endorsement thing leads down this path imo. You all have your rights to your own philosophical views after all

Plus, because a celebrity practices a meditative technique or follows a religious philosophical world view does this make it notable for inclusion in a wiki article? Does the Christan article list a load of celebrities who are christian? Do the Muslim articles? Or on a closer comparison does the Zen Buddhism article list any? I think not. The closest might be the Tantric Buddhism article which lists "celebrity" practitioners and that I simply see no need for neither. Looks a little "tacky" to be honest, like articles that include "trivia" lists and adds nothing at all. The7thdr (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and Islam are far larger. It's not uncommon to list notable members of any group that has an article on Wikipedia. It'd be better to explicitly list them as practitioners, with proper sourcing, rather than just including them in "See also" sections without any explanation.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you :-) The7thdr (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 7th. There's no strong reason to add any more than we have now. These people are examples. However, if someone wants to add some names I guess it fine. My concern is as I've said is with making the article sound like an advert. Since TM articles have been criticized for this in the past, my thought would be to go carefully on this subject and add less rather than more.(olive (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I also agree that there may be more interesting things to include in the History section than what celebs learned TM. Again, I am not familiar with the history of TM, but some folks might know about things like when TM was first taught in Russia (perhaps a communist country at the time), or in Africa. I assume you can learn TM in another language then english?? Was some of the scientific research on TM very ground-breaking when it was first published? I believe there are studies on how TM effects crime. This must have been "historic" sort of research?? Anyway, my point is to look for other things that happened over the years that were significant. Bigweeboy 20 May 2009

OK just to bring everyone back to the specific issue of what's on the table. Here are the sentences and references that I am proposing (see below). I have amended it to only include the celebrities most known for their involvement with TM. My preliminary research (google) that Clint is more well known for TM than Howard Stern. But if someone can show otherwise I am happy to take out Clint and put Howard in. So is it OK now? (see below) Please be specific. If you oppose the entire entry, than say so. If you think its OK now with some celebrities removed than please give your approval. Otherwise this discussion can go on forever and we all have other things to do, yes?  :-) --Kbob (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[Beginning in 1968 a number of well known musicians and celebrities reported using the technique such as Donovan, members of The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as Clint Eastwood and Deepak Chopra. In 1975, the Maharishi, appeared with Merv Griffin on his highly rated talk show and Transcendental Meditation became a “full blown craze” according to Time Magazine, eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries.] --Kbob (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kbob. I adjusted this a little so that it is specifically references meditation and not the Maharishi. What do you think.(olive (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

[Beginning in 1968 a number of well known musicians and celebrities reported using the technique such as Donovan, members of The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as Clint Eastwood and Deepak Chopra. In 1975, enthusiastic meditator Merv Griffin invited the Maharishi to appear on his highly rated talk show, aiding Transcendental Meditation to become a “full blown craze” according to Time Magazine, and eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries.]

Yes, good change. --Kbob (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this too. Bigweeboy 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good I have made the entry. Edit for grammar etc as you like. --Kbob (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob. This seems like a legitimate entry in terms of notability of the technique and also in terms of history specific to the technique.(olive (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

The entry looks good Kbobb. I was wondering if there are any other "significant" events that could be put in this section. I have been doing some background reading from the Internet on TM in the news and have a few suggestions, but perhaps the "experts" may have other thing that they feel should be included in the History. I will make a my suggestions here in the next few days, and we can discuss whether or not they should be included. SUGGESTION 1: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the front cover of Time Magazine on October 13, 1975." SUGGESTION 2: "In 1961, Maharishi conducts the first international Teacher Training Course near Rishikesh, India. Over 60 TM meditators from India, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Britain, Malaya, Norway, the United States, Australia, Greece, Italy, and the West Indies attended." Bigweeboy 23 May 2009

Good ideas Bigboy but we have to be careful as the article subject is TM and Maharishi has his own article. So we want to events that are clearly about TM and that they are notable in the context of the whole history of TM and the current length of the article. Having said that if you have a sentence or two and a reference, please make a proposal in a new section of the talk page. This section has gotten quite long and needs to be closed out. --Kbob (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think it's a good idea to incorporate Bigboy's suggestion, (SUGGESTION 1: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the front cover of Time Magazine on October 13, 1975.") in the article about Maharishi? That seems like an appropriate place for me. Rishikesh is already listed there. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My Username is Bigweeboy, not 'Bigboy'. Yes it could be included in the article about the Maharishi, but it is also important here as the title on the Time cover is Meditation: The Answer to all Your Problems, and is clearly about Transcendental Meditation by association. Why not put it in both? Bigweeboy 27 May 2009

Sorry, Bigweeboy, I thought you used both. Anyway I did eventually find the time magazine cover quoted in the Maharishi article, I think it might be redundant to list it again here, unless editors think it is relevant enough to warrant republishing. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Time magazine picture and some comment on the article were in the Maharishi article and removed. The cover picture was deleted discussion here [4], as non free content, and the few lines in the article were deleted later. I suspect the mention of the cover without the picture would be a little uninteresting. Mention could be added in either article or both dependent on the wording of the edit.(olive (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Dear Bigweeboy, sometimes when editors have a long username like yours people naturally use a shortened version during discussion. Like Luke for LukeWarmwater and Will for WillBeback. Please note that when we do this there is no offense intended. So if someone refers to you as Big or Bigboy its just for efficiency and not for any other reason. If there is a short version that you like, you can denote that in the signature section of your user page and it will then appear when you sign a comment and then we can use the short version that you like and we won't accidentally step on your big wee toes! :-) Peace! --Kbob (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So there is a line on the Time magazine picture in the MMY article. That's probably the best we can do since we can't use the picture.(olive (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I can't help it; I only wish that people would call me "Big Boy" Sigh, perhaps someday? The7thdr (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey 7th, glad to see you still have your sense of humor :-) --Kbob (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am so new to Wiki and I have to get used to all these types of edits. And I do have BIG WEE TOES! Anyway, I am glad to have found the TM page as it is so lively in discussion and comments. I have not found another page where I can learn so much so quickly. So it seems like the Time article is not going to make it into the HIstory section. Would people like me to continue looking for stuff on the web that might be included in the TM History? I will not waste my time if people feel it is not necessary. Bigweeboy 28 May 2009

Thanks for having a sense of humor Bigweeboy! --Kbob (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

The debate about editing the Wiki talk pages on TM has become excessively convoluted, thereby favoring a very few editors who have kept up with the can-of-worms thinking. I suggest moving all the current editorial debates into archives and starting a new editing process, based on a sentence-by-sentence consideration of the currently-accepted Wiki entry on TM.

New edits based upon larger textual sections should be listed separate from the sentence-by-sentence area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.148.209 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Additions of contentious, non-sourced, material

I have removed and placed here two, WP:POV, unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, non consensus additions to the TM article

• Diff: [5]

Text:

although later it was found that when compared to controls the original claims were actually insignificant. Early claims like metabolic rate were eventually withdrawn when independent researchers founds poor methodology.

Source: Dillbeck, M.C. and E.C. Bronson: 1981, "Short-term longitudinal effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on EEG power and coherence", International Journal of Neuroscience 14, pp. 147-151

• Diff: [6]

Text:

Medical Research Claims Found to be Exaggerated or Insignificant

In June 2007 the University of Alberta put out the first major independent review of the medical claims made in TM scientific research, Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. The results were shocking in that it went against many of the findings that had been touted for decades by the Transcendental Meditation movement in their promotional and marketing literature. Based on this report, TM should no longer be seen as a significant contributor for any health benefit.

Later reviews were quickly issued by TM researchers masquerading as independent researchers to attempt to countervene the new findings.

Source: None given

Because the TM article is highly contentious, a standard for editing and making substantial additions such as the above has been to post or discuss the additions on the discussion page reach agreement from editors here, and then if there is agreement to post the material. In the case of these additions the edits are in part highly WP:POV and as well from what I know of the research, untrue, so not properly sourced

Also because the article is contentious, I have placed the new text here rather than delete it completely pending discussion. Thanks(olive (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

To underpin....

I thought it might be good idea to start a new thread since we seem to be talking about delving into the research section. In summary of past discussions on the research section and to bring us all up to date:

• (I agree that the TM organization uses its research to underpin its position on the positive effects of the technique). There is, though, considerable research on the TM technique and its positive effects .... between 350-400 peer reviewed studies as well as a considerable amount of press. Peer review and the quality of the publisher is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:SOURCE), and means in general that the researchers, their methodologies, findings have been scrutinized by an independent panel or jury. Questioning the research also brings into questions all of these juries.
• The fact that there is so much peer reviewed research and the importance the press and the organization itself attach to it in regard to the technique gives us information about the weight of the research in terms of the weight of the article.
• Citing research itself in an article is probably first party referencing. There has been discussion and some general agreement in the past to begin exchanging the research as it is, for sources that actually discuss the research such as the press. This may be a good time to start making those exchanges. Google press archives gives us good information on the importance of the research in terms of the mainstream press.
• We've had a standard for editing here that includes discussion, agreement, and then editing in the changes. This can work well for contentious article such as this one, but also slows down the editing. I'd suggest we agree that we all either we go with that method, or that we agree on just editing into the article.
• To reiterate Kbob's points above, although opinion is fine on a discussion page, we have to make sure WP:NPOV is maintained in the article. WP:POV and WP:OR often go hand in hand and can undermine NPOV.(olive (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Redundant section

The recently added and edited section on the U of A meta study is not only WP:OR and WP:POV, but is redundant, since a well sourced version is already in place in the article. Who wants to remove the new section? The older section is in place as a result of consensus. The new section is not.(olive (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

• Already in place [7]

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies, of which 230 were studies of TM or TM-Sidhi.[44]. The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.(p. 6) [45]

Let me review it over the next day or so. Since a biased, TM-zealot sponsored counter-review is being used to diminish the authenticity of the much larger study, this will need to be addressed, perhaps in it's own section (I now have references for this claim and will post the references for this at that time). Since there is a long and documented history of research deception and exaggeration in TM research, it will be appropriate to create a new section to cover this history. This is a fact shown clearly in independent research using excellent methodology. The reason it is important to include this is simply because TM research is an integral part of the TM Org's presentation, justification and rationale for the efficacy of the technique. Therefore independent scientific research which counters this and uses good science to demonstrate this needs to be included. This may also mean including a trend in more than one section.--BettyBrahman (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty and Olive, this morning I went to the article and made significant edits to the section being discussed here. I also removed the section heading and integrated the new sentences into the bottom of the section on research. Then I came to the discussion page to document my changes and saw your entries here. I was unaware that this study is already included in the article under a different name and that this makes the new entry redundant. So I will now remove my edited version of the recent entry by Betty and WillBeback and we can continue this discussion here. Sorry for the convoluted editing process--Kbob (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. A have a basic question: In the research published by the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine there were 813 studies included, of which, about 25% were on TM. I wonder what is the % contribution of non-TM research vs. the TM research that lead to the conclusion that "firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." I am not a scientist, nor am I familiar with this research, so perhaps this is not a valid question. It just seems that IF the non-TM research (75%) did not have good results, then it would strongly influence the overall results. Am I way off base here? Bigweeboy 12:29 (EST) 31 May 2009

This has been an important part of past discussion. I have to rush away now but maybe can discuss later.(olive (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi Bigweeboy... The U of Alberta meta study also known as the Opsina/Bond report has been discussed at least a couple of times in this article's history. The last discussion can be found here.[8]. Discussion centered around the relevance of the study to an article on TM, and the way in which the study was inserted into the article. You bring up an important point which translates into whether the study refers to TM specifically enough, or is too broad to include in this article. After a lot of discussion, some adjustment in the text, and agreement, the report was left in the article. Personally I'm fine with that, but a good point.(olive (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. As I said before, I am very new to Wiki and still learning the ropes. It seem I am covering old ground here, so I will leave this issue to the "experts" for now. I'll keep coming back to the discussion, and am happy to help out any way I can. Thanks for you patience and you inclusive attitude. It make a NEW Bigweeboy feel welcome. Bigweeboy 12:33 (EST) 2 June 2009

You bring up good points that are worth reiterating and reminds us as well that Wikipedia is organic and can change at any time. Every comment helps us all look more deeply into the article. We're all learning here or at least I am... so ask away and hopefully someone can answer. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Change in lede

I'd like to remove this from the lede:

..."and is stated to involve neither concentration nor contemplation." This is weasel wording and very awkward syntax...

I would add those lines and its source to "Principles of the Technique"

The lede could contain a more general, possibly, more appropriate to a lede statement like , "The official TM website describes the technique as one that is natural and effortless"

Comments? (olive (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Wonderful idea, Olive. I never like that wording "..is stated to.." I think you suggestion is very good and the right place to put it. (Bigweeboy (talk) 6:10, 2 June 2009 (EST))

The whole lede is awkward, but the alternative is even worse, suffering from a severe violation of NPOV; you don't take a lede straight from a TM promotional pamphlet. (And, as an aside, if it is "natural and effortless" why does the TM Org charge 2 large to teach it?) Let me suggest an alternative:

Transcendental Meditation, or TM is a form of mantra meditation popularized by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi beginning in the late 1950's, which he claimed to have been developed from Vedic tradition. The terms "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are servicemarks of the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation applying to the teaching of the technique.[1]) Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the natural, effortless part is a little uncomfortable. It however does not violate NPOV since it is very acceptable to allow a topic article to self define. It is clear in the syntax that this is how the TM org defines itself rather than this is any kind of statement of fact. I'm not attached to it at all, and posted it here rather than directly into the article because I wondered if any one felt it was little awkward as I did. A combination of what you suggest with what is in place now with some adjustments might work. Below is a start.(olive (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

The Transcendental Meditation® technique, or TM® technique is a form of mantra meditation trademarked to (Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation). The technique was developed, introduced, and popularized in the 1950's by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008).

I'm not convinced that in the lede we have to note who the technique is trademarked to, but I fine with leaving it there.... just a comment to see what others think.(olive (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not convinced of that either - it fits more with the bit in the body about only TM-certified teachers can teach it. And, a point of accuracy - the technique is not trademarked. One cannot trademark a technique. The use of the terms "transcendental meditation", "TM" in connection with the teaching of meditation is what is trademarked. Fladrif (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point Fladriff, a trademark shows ownership of a trade name or mark. It is not a patent on a process or technique. At the same time I feel that the trademark explanation should be there. This is because the words "transcendental meditation" are often used in pop culture media to describe meditation in general. (these are samples not citations) Just like Kleenex and Scotch Tape are wrongly used to refer to facial tissue and clear office tape. Both the Wiki articles on Kleenex and Scotch Tape discuss the trademark and who has ownership right at the beginning of their respective articles--Kbob (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the trademark symbol is placed after the words Transcendental Meditation and not after the the word technique. Its awkward to explain in the lede. I agree its best later on in the body of the article for many reasons, including that its awkward. So we'd have this below. Is that enough?(olive (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

The Transcendental Meditation® technique, or TM® technique is a form of mantra meditation developed, introduced, and popularized in the 1950's by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008).

I agree the points about concentration etc should be addressed in the Principals of Practice section and for that reason I like your sentence above. However, the reasons I have stated above I think we should add a second sentence to the lede like this:"The term “Transcendental Meditation” is a trademark owned by Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, a non-profit organization."--Kbob (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I like both suggestions. I'm of two minds on "developed" and "introduced", because it is not at all clear to me whether MMH claimed to have developed the technique, or whether he claimed to have learned it from his gurus or derived it from earlier sources. Putting that concern aside, which I don't know how to resolve, if you say "beginning in the late 1950's" in olive's text, and add KBob's sentence it's fine with me. A note about dates: the article says that MMH started teaching TM in 1955 at one point and 1958 at another. Which is it? Fladrif (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The forward to Science of Being (author Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) says Maharishi "introduced" the technique to the world in 1957. So here, we can probably use the word introduced and remove developed and popularized. We can also use the date 1957, I would think .... This would be the most accurate source for the date since it is Maharishi's own book. Seem OK? Version below combining suggestions above. (olive (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

The Transcendental Meditation® technique, or TM® technique is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008)."The term 'Transcendental Meditation' is a trademark owned by Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, a non-profit organization."

Looks good to me.Fladrif (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says not to include trademark symbols.   Will Beback  talk  15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... Good. Something I wanted to check ... I had put them back in because they had been removed at one point I think accidentally, so I assumed they were appropriate, but thought a check would be good. They are somewhat redundant as well given the next sentence.(olive (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Since there seems to be agreement I'll can put the revised lede minus the trademark symbols into the article later today, and I'll add the "concentration contemplation" segment from the lede to the Procedures section.(olive (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I've added the new text for the lede as discussed, added the "concentration contemplation" text to the Procedure section, and adjusted syntax and text a little to better accommodate the new material. See how that works.(olive (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Looks good Olive. Well done! (Bigweeboy (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Bigweeboy ... glad it works...a nice group effort.(olive (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good outcome and good cooperation on the a part of all editors. However, I have moved the concentration/contemplation sentence to the Principles section since it does not have anything to do with Teaching Procedures but instead refers to the actual practice of the technique itself. Don't you agree? --Kbob (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh ... My mistake. We did discuss moving it to "Principles"...Thanks for catching that error Kbob.(olive (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Consensus requirements should not apply here

Consensus requirements should not apply here, since any non-TM organization POV are consistently overruled out by intervention of Transcendental Meditation hardliners, promoters and TM Org members.

This is is very similar situation to the Scientology entries issue. Furthermore, known TM Org URL's should be blocked, as should IP's of biased TM promoters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyBrahman (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty. In actual fact many of the recent additions to the TM article were added by editors obviously not supportive of TM. I suggest that you might want to recheck the recent discussions if you want to have an accurate picture of what goes on here. I notice you haven't edited here since 2007. Much has changed since then. Consensus is a critical part of the decision making process on any Wikipedia article and is in effect here. Thanks (olive (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi Littleolive oil and thank you for your concerns. You are correct I haven't edited here in a while. However I have observed this entry since it's beginning and have observed a number of disturbing trends across time, an almost cult-like adherence to Transcendental Meditation POV used in their marketing of their products (TM being merely one of their many products) and a concerted effort to edit or revert non-TM Org POV. This has disturbed me since clearly such biased POV and calculated attempts at editing and/or reverting other contributors is not only wiki-vandalism but a clear affront to the spirit of the Wikipedia. Recent similar examples include the Scientology organization and their attempts at controlling certain entries. While time prohibits a full delineation of the activities that are going on under numerous TM-related entries, rest assured such activities have been noted by a number of users. Just because non-TM followers are in the minority here is no reason users like myself should be prevented from posting relevant information which improves the Wikipedia. --BettyBrahman (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty. I missed your above post in the last days and had posted something below as a kind of update. I did want to specifically address some of your points myself, but apologize if any of these points are redundant. The fact that you haven't been editing is certainly not a criticism in any way but simply a suggestion to check the archives for information since I believe things have changed here in the past few years. If you find material you believe is POV, I would strongly suggest you post here, so it can be discussed and if POV, removed. POV either for or against TM is not accepted as Wikipedia Neutral Point of View information. Any opportunity to dig POV material out of the article is excellent. I want to make sure we are defining POV in the same way. WP:POV means as I understand it, material that the editor enters into the article and is his/her opinion. This POV is not sourced, referenced, material that supports TM for example or alternately doesn't support TM. Our job as editors is to write an article that reflects how TM is viewed and understood in the mainstream press and literature, giving priority to majority views and less emphasis to less notable positions... to the point of probably not entering tiny fringe points. Checking the Google news archives is one good way of doing that. We also don't have to add our opinions and can leave it up to the reader to come to conclusions about the technique themselves. That's writing for an encyclopedia which is different than original research WP:OR or synthesis of material. And of course whatever we have to say about the writing of the topic, our personal opinions, can be stated on the talk page to a certain extent, but shouldn't be used in the article. I think I understand what you mean by Wiki vandalism , but Wikipedia:Vandalism is probably defined differently. Thanks. Working together as Kbob says below I'm sure we can identify and remove any POV material.(olive (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Hello Betty and welcome to the article. I am sorry but I have reversed your additions. However I am happy to discuss them here on the talk page with you. Wiki as you know is a collaborative effort and a team of editors have been diligently working on this article for some time. Please join us in an intelligent discussion and concerted effort to improve this article. You have cited a valid research study however you also added several sentences exhibiting point of view WP:POV and original research WP:OR both of which are disallowed on Wiki. Please click on the links so you can read the Wiki guidelines concerning these topics and then you will understand more about why I have reverted your additions. I think together we can find a proper location and wording so that this research study you have referenced can be included in the article in a neutral fashion and with appropriate weight WP:WEIGHT and in proper context. One last point is that Wiki guidelines also prohibit personal attacks and accusations about other editors, so please consider this policy as well WP:NPA. In a nutshell what the policy states is that we should discuss only the article and avoid making conclusions, accusations or comments about other editors. I hope this information is helpful and that we can work together with all the editors to continue to improve this Wiki article. Best Wishes, --Kbob (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob! I'll be glad to discuss them as I make some appropriate additions over the next couple of weeks. Clearly there is a need for improvement in this article as it is horrendously biased in it's current state. Unfortunately I'm afraid rectification of the inadequacies here may be difficult given the long, on-going edit-battles that have been waged here for years. It is my hope that I can improve the quality of the article and present some views which are currently disallowed by the on-going state of TM Org bias. --BettyBrahman (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I'm glad that you will be working on the article. Please keep in my that Wiki is about neutrality and no point of view and working together as a community of editors. It is not about any single person's agenda whether it be pro or con Transcendental Meditation. This kind of understanding and attitude is most helpful when working on Wiki articles. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, apart from the research section - and one section which I don't understand at the moment but which I shall comment on in a sec - the article is not (at least once more) not the "pro" TM. Research section still needs looking at though. The7thdr (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation teaching centers

I is confused, what does anything in this section have to do with the sections title as it has now been re-edited?

I quote:

Beginning in 1968 a number of well known musicians and celebrities, such as Donovan, members of The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as Clint Eastwood, Deepak Chopra and Andy Kaufman, reported using the technique. In 1975, enthusiastic meditator Merv Griffin invited the Maharishi to appear on his highly rated talk show, thereby aiding Transcendental Meditation in becoming a “full blown craze” during that era (according to Time Magazine) and eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries.[14] [15] [16] In that same year the Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques, called the TM-Sidhi Program, that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying. [17] 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)The7thdr (talk)

Nothing... sheesh... give me a few days and I'll fix it ....good catch.(olive (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good eye, 7th. Not sure how that happened. There is a similar section in the Maharishi article and its called Popularity so for the time being I have given the section that same title.--Kbob (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good Kbobb. I think the title "Popularity works very well here. Bigweeboy (talk) 00:44 , 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a miss-match, of popular history and "real history". As a general popular history I am afraid it is completely incorrectly weighed only towards positive, none controversial history. Reading this, seems that everyone loves TM and that the "Sexy Sadie ", incident, etc never happened. This needs reworking and correct weight being applied.If a ref to popular history such as the "the Beatles loved TM" then incidents such as the "falling-out" need to be included. Looks like an extract from a TM brochure at the moment. I did suggest this was likely prior to this section being added. The7thdr (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Popularity Section

I think 7th is right that the section title "Popularity" has a bit of POV to it. At the same time I also don't think the title History accurately reflects the content there. Does anyone have title to propose that would be more neutral and at the same time accurately reflect the content in the section? Or how about if we do away with all the subsections under History and just list the items by date of occurrence? --Kbob (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the events in the History section are already in chrono order. So it would be easy to take out the various sub section headings. Many of these sub headings consist of only one or two sentences. Do we really need them?--Kbob (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "History" section could be improved. As it stands, there is a hodge-podge of different topics there. Even the chronological order could be better. For example, the information about the Spiritual Regeneration Movement in 1959 should come before the sentence about what Maharishi did in the early 1970's. Regarding other titles for this section, the words I can think of are: Expansion, development, evolution and progression. In my opinion progression is the most neutral of these. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this title suggestion Flower. Bigweeboy (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm listening to Mitsuko Uchida's Mozart Concerto cycle to be in a "difficult mood" so please don't think I am being so :-). It was me that put in the subheadings as previously it was a little "confusing". Although I admit it was without gaining agreement first there was no objections and I think it was felt it worked. It also tends to fit in with the general structure of the article. The7thdr (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th.I can't do much right now but I'd like to look at the additions carefully in a couple of weeks when I return home.(olive (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

7th I think you have created a bit of imbalance in the popularity section. You seem to have quoted a number of people who did not have a positive experience with TM ...are you going to now find a bunch of people who had positive experiences and quote them? --Uncreated (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncreated: Nah, you can if you want though. However, as I am sure you are aware, by including a celebrities name - as you have done here - you are creating the impression that they somehow "endorse" said product. As can be clearly seen by my additions this is not necessarily the case. I happen to be something of a "fan" of KV and am well aware of his - and his wife and daughters - history with TM. the suggestion form the article that he was a TMer and endorsed it. Yet among those ware with his work this would clearly be incorrect. And i just found the Ozzy quote amusing - don't you? :)Must be this flu thing - giving me far to much spare time. Now where did I put that academic resource stating the origins of the mantras again...? The7thdr (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I only mention it because it bemused me. I understand from you edits and posts that your seem to want to create a more balanced article on TM yet by your recent additions to the popularity section you have created imbalance. --Uncreated (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not imbalance Uncreated - just clarification and truth :). I did mention this while - and I use the term in non-derogatory way - the "pro" TMers were going for it "hell to leather" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TM Movement

Re KeithBob's deletions of the stuff I added (Forgot to log in) - if you search for "TM Movement" you get thousands of hits on Google, and hundreds on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. Even the official TM.org website describes the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" So, I don't think you can delete this on the basis that there ain't no such thing - even the TM Movement says there's a TM Movement. And it's certainly relevant to the article. And, it is reliably sourced.Fladrif (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladriff, Sorry I deleted your sentence without saying anything. You didn't sign in so I just thought it was a drive by edit. Anyhow my position is that the lede is an introduction and summary and is not the place for a detailed discussion of servicemarks. Also the copy that is there now specifically mentions the legal entity that owns the servicemarks and trademarks. The term 'Transcendental Meditation movement' is not a legal entity and has no standing as a company or organization and has not clear accepted definition. It is a slang term and any term or combination of words can be a search term on Google. Pick any two words. How about 'car meditation'? Do a search on Google for these two words and you get 5 million hits. So this does not validate a term and make it relevant to this article. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the "Transcendental Meditation movement" what be a good topic for a separate article. It could cover some of the organizational issues that aren't quite on topic in other articles like this one.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The official TM sites repeatedly use the term "Transcendental Meditation Movement", so I'm puzzled and perplexed by the argument being made here. In addition, the Google hits I cited are for the phrase, not for the individual words - and they're real hits. I take it that the "preferred" term among the TM insiders is TMO, or "TM organization", though perhaps only among other insiders. My impression is that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to reliably source what legal entity in the TM orgainization does what (see the discussion on the TM Sidhi Programs sparked by olive's comment re who teaches what course). TM Movement or TM Organization is a handy shorthand that is consistent with how the movement/organization/whatever is described in the press, in books, and in the organization's own promotional materials. And, this insert is appropriate to the lede, because the term "TM" is used to mean a number of things: the technique, the "science", the organization. TM the technique is just one of the many things that TM the organization teaches. Fladrif (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob is right. Transcendental Meditation movement is slang for the whole range of trademarked aspects of the organization. This is the official site [9] and also lists links to other sites and I don't see the term Transcendental Mediation Movement used anywhere. I could be missing it. The term Transcendental Meditation is used to mean the technique only...it is a form of mediation. The official website also uses the terms Transcendental Meditation Program to define the follow-up, support aspects that are offered after the technique itself has been taught. Notice also in the article referenced in the lede that the person speaking uses the term Transcendental Mediation movement, and movement is not capitalized. This means that the phrase is not a proper noun, but is descriptive. So this means we can't then take that descriptive phrase and use it as if it was a proper noun in our lede. What we are saying is just not really accurate. I think we really have delineate slang from the official usage in order to create an article that is very clear in terms of defining the topic/subject accurately

I do see the problem though. What do we call the so-called "organization"? I think we first have to go with what's on the official sites, with what the organization calls itself. Do we have that information?(olive (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

The usual standard for naming things on Wikipedia is to use the most popular name, not the most "official" name. In the little research I've done on this topic, I've also come across "TM movement". I think there are sufficient sources for an article, and I think that it would help the article here by splitting the organization and meditiative issues.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the lede we have to define correctly. If we want to use something that is slang, and not accurate then we clearly attribute it in the text to a source or sources, and it doesn't belong in a lede. I think its fine to include the information Fladrif did. I'd like it to be accurate. Can we do that?

The different aspects of the organization have already been split off from this article. This article is clearly about the TM technique.(olive (talk))

I don't think "slang" is an accurate description. The obit for the Maharishi in the Los Angeles Times begins, "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement..."[10] The term is used in over 400 books, according to Google.[11] There are still significant amounts of material related to the movement in this article, including sections on the cult issues, the lawsuits, etc. Further, an article on the organizational aspects could explain the relationships between the various entities, which now only appear in the template with little or no indication of the connections.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. Even the official TM web pages call it the "TM Movement": "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the founder of the world wide Transcendental Meditation Movement." [12] "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the worldwide Transcendental Meditation Movement,..."[13]"The Transcendental Meditation movement started simply and grew steadily."[14] This article is definitely about more than just the TM technique, and we are certainly not bound to confine this article to the way that the TM Org/Movement/whatever wants to market its product, which is, quite explicitly, to try to gain mainstream acceptance of TM by trying to separate the TM technique from the woo woo aspects of the TM "science" and the TM organization. I'd like to say more about the organization in this article, but I'm quite frankly finding a hard time locating independent, secondary sources on the details. Near as I can figure out, the organization now is under the overall umbrella of the Global Country of World Peace, overseen by an Maharaja appointed by MMY, with 27 Rajas and 8 Purusha Rajas, 12 Global Ministers and a prime minister, and then, in each country, a national director and 12 directors, with the pattern repeated at the state and city level. There are also similary organizations for the Purusha and Mother Divine programs, and also something called Vedic Pandits. In keeping with the theme of the organization being a "government", everyone certified to teach TM is called a "Governor". The organization is trying to establish "Peace Palaces" as well as "Invincibility Centers" But, what exactly any of this bureaucracy actually does, and how the various corporations, such as the Maharishi Foundation, MVED, MUM, etc....fit into the overall organization is yet more difficult to pin down.Fladrif (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrfi. In talking to people associated with the TM org they said quite explicitly there is no TM Movement. However, if official sites are using the term then I think we can as well. It is unclear to me as well just what the responsibilities of these different "organizations" are responsible for. My sense is that TM movement is a general overarching term used for the general public, that there is a trademarking section of the organization that is more of a legal entity, and that there is as you said above, a system inside the organization that works with the actual teaching. At any rate I am OK with the sentence in the lede since we now have a source that defines as the organization defines itself(olive (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi began using the terms "the Movement" and "our Movement" very early on, during the Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) days, starting in the late 1950s when it was clear that the new concept of effortless enlightenment was igniting a huge popular interest. The word "movement" expressed the spontaneous nature of this explosive growth, as well as an implication that this organization belonged to everyone. Maharishi was fond of saying, "the Movement belongs to those who move."

Many years have passed, and (IMO) the leadership of the TM Movement has become somewhat rigid, adhering to the formulaic dicta "given out" by Maharishi, even when they cannot give a good rationale for them (a few examples of many: the high course fees, building a flamboyant, tall building in each country, and reconstructing all houses so their entrances point exactly to the East).

Yet, In spite of this rigidity, the Movement is still quite alive. And anyone can still play a major role. The filmmaker David Lynch, for example, is responsible for sponsoring the incredibly successful Quiet Time project in U.S. schools (Quiet Time in the Classroom) on the basis of his sincere advocacy and the donation of large amounts of money from his eponymous Foundation.

Although the term "the TM Movement" originated with Maharishi and his followers, it was readily adopted by journalists writing about the phenomenon of TM in the 1960s and 1970s. I'm sure there are plenty of authoritative references to be had among the many early TM articles published in national and local magazines and newspapers. David spector (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede reads "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of sixty products and courses offered by the Transcendental Meditation movement." But is not the "Transcendental Meditation movement" that is offering these courses. It is specific teaching organizations that do so. Therefore, I think that this sentence should be removed from the lede. Bigweeboy (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who teaches TM? The sentence you're referring to cited to a reliable source quoting a TM teacher.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term seems to have become overarching, generalized terminology to simplify understanding for the general public. Using such a general term in the lede of the article weakens the article because it lacks specificity, and in the context of this article creates confusion seems to me, but Will is right, it is reliably sourced, and so it is acceptable to use it. If there was a consensus to use more specific and accurate wording that would be good , but I don't see any sources that specify a name for the specific section of the organization that is responsible for teaching. Anyone have that information?(olive (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough Olive. I accept the sentence in the lede as is. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is properly sourced, the term is fine by me. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Will's idea of there being a separate article for the TM Movement/organisation.--Uncreated (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Purusha and Mother Divine

Should this really be in the article on Transcendental Meditation? It is a very fringe program of the TM organisation and surely does not deserve the attention is it given in this article on Transcendental Meditation. There is probably a lot of information available about the program that is appropriately sourced but I would think it deserves its own Article rather than be wedged into the TM Article. If there are editors who feel it should be mentioned because of its association with the TM Org which teaches TM I would point out there are numerable other programs which are far more popular and well known than the Purusha and Mother Divine program that should be given the space that is now dedicated to the Purusha and Mother Divine section. --Uncreated (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think uncreated brings up a good point. As stated in the lede, there are 61 programs and courses related to TM. Obviously we cannot put a paragraph for all of these programs in the TM article and so in the past we have created separate articles for these programs ie. TM-Sidhi, Global Country of World Peace, Maharishi Ayurveda and so on. Why are we making an exception for Mother Divine and Purusha programs?--Kbob (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another reason to have a "TM movement" article - it could include descriptions of the relatively minor programs that don't merit articles of their own.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we could create 2 articles: one on Purusha, another on Mother Divine. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussing the validity of the sections inclusion in this article. I removed the phrase "described as monasteries" because it is not supported by the citation. The source (which is about a toilet invention, yikes!) gives TM related data, but does not mention the Purusha or Mother Divine programs. Quotes from the source article(which is about a toilet invention, yikes!) gives the following 'TM related data, but does not mention the Purusha or Mother Divine programs:

• He moved on to North Carolina in 1996 for a life of quiet introspection and progressive bowel movements, working as a computer programmer at the Heavenly Mountain Resort.
• Isbit said that beyond the discovery of transcendental meditation, his time at Yale was "rather uneventful."

I would support moving the Mother Divine and Purusha programs elsewhere. I as I said above, the "History" section of this article seems quite disjointed and consists of a string of seemingly unrelated paragraphs. Would it be more appropriate for this article to include a list of the biggest or most significant programs? Then people could investigate further if they are interested. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this article would be best focused on the meditation technique, and organizational aspects should be moved to another article.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Uncreated (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; although if it is to be included here I think in the Relgion section - as it does seem to support the idea that TM is a religion The7thdr (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As shown above there is strong consensus that the Purusha and Mother Divine section is not appropriate for this TM article. So I have removed it and pasted it below in case it is needed for a future article. --Kbob (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very good that you have remove the Mother Divine/Purusha section Kbobb. You paragraph can be used in other articles, as you suggest. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Among the advanced programs offered by the TM organization are the Purusha and Mother Divine programs , long-term residential programs for TM "monks and "nuns", respectively, involving a lifestyle of celibacy and meditation.. In the US, separate campuses of the Purusha and Mother Divine programs were formerly located outside Boone, NC, adjacent to the Maharishi Spiritual Center of America. As of 2002, the Purusha program for men and the Mother Divine program for women involved 310 men and 100 women respectively, on separate campuses. The Purusha and Mother Divine programs involve daily 4 1/2 hour meditation sessions in the morning, fundraising or work for the nonprofit entities associated with the Spiritual Center in the afternoons, and then group meditation in the evening. Both programs also include reading and study of Vedic literature, and instruction in Sanskrit and Vedic science. While participation in the Purusha or Mother Divine programs requires a minimum 3-month commitment, many participants have been part of this program for 20 years or more. ,In 2004 the campuses were moved to Fairfield, Iowa.

We do have multiple topics pending on this and other related articles so might be good to finish those before jumping into discussion on a new article.(olive (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I strongly disagree with this material being excised from the article. This is simply one of the advanced TM programs offered by the TM Movement. It's pretty clear that the TM Org regards this group as the pinnacle of achievement in the TM technique, though it's naturally reluctant to publicise it. If you don't want it in "History", it belongs in the "Cult" section. Fladrif (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I question your assessment that the TM organization regards Purusha and Mother Divine 'as the pinnacle of achievement in the TM technique.." I am a rather inexperienced editor. However, I am wondering if this judgement on your part might be considered POV. I'm also wondering what your justification could possibly be for placing this material in the "Cult" section. I am not and never have been a religious person. However, even I can appreciate that there are a few people who choose to live a quiet, reclusive, contemplative life away from the hustle and bustle of the world. That is an old and venerable tradition on our planet, is it not? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon and Sexy Sadie

I have no problem with the sentence below as it specified by the source that is cited:

• John Lennon “fell out” with the Maharishi and wrote the song “Sexie Sadie” about his allegedly materialistic ways..

7th Door then found a reference for lyrics to the song Sexy Sadie and added this sentence:

• The song begins with the lines:"Sexy Sadie what have you done.You made a fool of everyone."

However, isn't this original research on our part? Making the judgment that these specific lines from the song illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways"? To be objective wouldn't we need to print all the lyrics and let the reader decide? It seems to me to be personal interpretation to select any particular part of the song lyrics. What do others think? --Kbob (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right Kbobb. Perhaps there are secondary sources that can be used. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Making the judgment that these specific lines from the song illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways

Not at all, this is the conclusion drawn in the original article - not original research on my behalf. Indeed, it was you Kbob that altered the sentence to reflect this fact :-)

Note that prior to you adding this i have already removed it on the basis stated in the edit. But happy to discuss if you wish to add it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, thanks for the response. You are correct the sources says Lennon wrote the song to illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways". I am not disputing that. What I am questioning is us editors picking specific lines from the song to illustrate the point. That is a judgment call on the part of an editor in include some lyrics and exclude other lyrics, don't you think?. I think we either have to quote all the lyrics or none at all. Anyway it seems you have removed it so I guess I won't blather on further. :-) peace!--Kbob (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a New Article

I think the best way to proceed would be to create another article and move this info over to it. I agree with Will, the article on Transcendental Meditation should focus on the technique and other information that deals with the Organisation of Transcendental Meditation and its other programs should be moved to a new Article. I have no idea how to create a new Article...maybe Will you could do so? --Uncreated (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of creating a "Misc TM" article where we place all the various TM related programs. The procedure on Wiki is to create articles on specific topics if they are notable, not to create a catch all article for a collection of items that don't stand on their own.--Kbob (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The TM movement is quite notable and there are many book and articles that talk about it. It'd certinaly make more sense to have itmes like this in an article like that rather than treating this as the de facto "misc" article. The meditation technique is a large enough topic so that this article should focus on it alone.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Will I agree, that these misc. items don't belong in this article on TM. But I'm also not sure its useful to have a collection of small, random topics in a separate article either. I am in favor of the TM article retaining its own integrity and other notable programs also have their own article. If the topic of the "TM Movement" can be shown to be notable with reliable sources than of course it can have its own article just like any other article topic but it shouldn't created as a place for a collection of items that are not notable enough to stand on their own.--Kbob (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a fair point Kbob.--Uncreated (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kbobb. If a new article were to be created under the title of "TM Movement" it would be a mish-mash of disjoined items that are not notable in their own right. I feel that while "TM Movement" may be used in common parlance, it is not an actual organization, entity, establishment, or club. Better to have the more notable topics have their own article, if they even warrant that. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uncreated and Will, the TM movement is highly notable and needs/warrants it's own entry. If this is not to be the case than I would recommend that this article must by default include all such information. There is no TM technique without the Tm Movement.Could I also point out that this article was originally about the "Movement" and not the "technique". looking through the history of this article this is apparent and the focus was changed without agreement originally by TG.it can either be one or the other I am afraid. To see how this is handled in other religions one only needs to read the entries on Buddhism Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. It is clear form the movements founder that principles upon which TM "works" are deeply religious and philosophical. This needs to be noted in WIKI. That TM is also the first part of a greater "program" to influence @reality" via paranormal/occult/spiritual means supports this contention —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have multiple topics pending on this and other related articles so might be good to finish those before jumping into discussion on a new article.

I am not in favour of creating an article on TM Movement or movement until we clearly delineate what the term means or is. We have MVEDC, and we have Global Country of World Peace. MVEDC seems to be a licensing organization. Is it also in charge of teaching? Global Country of World Peace seems to be the governing organizing body. What then is "TM movement"? We have to be able to clearly define the topic/subject matter otherwise we risk creating a kind of a dumping ground for bits and pieces of information.(olive (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

This article is the de facto dumping ground, so moving miscellaneous items out of here would improve the article. MVEDC certainly appears to be a core element of the movement. I suggest that the best way to proceed would be to set up a page to serve as a repository for research on the topic. Once the field has been covered, the outlines and content of an article will be easy to create.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this article was pared down to include only material that related as directly as possible to the TM technique. If it has become a dumping ground recently perhaps the solution is to have editors support the contentious nature of the article, and add only content that is discussed and agreed upon. It seems counter productive for us to allow all kinds of content into the article and then to create another article as a holding tank for those misc. bits of information.(olive (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with miscellaneous bits of information - that's what encyclopedias are for. It's reproted that the TM movement has 60 programs. It'd be worthwhile to cover those in some article, and also to explain (if we can find any sources) the history of the movement and the connections between the various entities.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that the MUM crowd here is against including content, whether in this article or in a separate article on the TM Org/Movement/Whatever that describes, all in one place, the full panoply of things that the TM true believers actually believe and do. You'd think that they'd be thrilled that people could read about the opportunity to become celibate TM "monks" and "nuns", or to change your destiny by buying indulgences - I mean Yagyas performed by Vedic Pandits to avert the negative influences of planetary alignment or to atone for your sins - I mean past wrong actions or to accomplish your desires. Or how for a mere million bucks, you too can be a Raja in the Global Country of World Peace. Shocked! Round up the usual suspects.Fladrif (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is a valid topic than it should be easy for an editor to write some copy ie a draft of a lede which by Wiki definition would be an introduction and summary of the article and would be very well sourced. If any editors can create some concrete proposal like that then we would have something concrete to discuss. Otherwise it's just opinion and conjecture. We can also write articles on the Yagya program or on Mother Divine. There is no problem with that. We just want to keep the TM article for TM and not get it mixed up with the 61 other programs.--Kbob (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MVEDC has trademarked a large number of terms, many connected with active programs. Topics that are sufficiently notable to have articles of their own, like TM itself, can keep their separate articles and just have a short summary there. As Kbob says, that will allow us to "keep the TM article for TM".   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully expressed, Will. I completely agree with your assessment - let's "keep the TM article for TM". --BwB (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion needed for major addition

While I'm not against including any so-called negative research such a large and critical section needs careful dissection scrutiny and discussion. This is a contentious article after all, eh 7th? I've moved the content here for discussion. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

No need to discuss before inclusion Olive - unless it is un-resourced or against wiki polices, which it is not. Some of us do not have weeks to hang around here here i am afraid. However, happy to discuss now it is in place. thought you were not around for a while by the way? hope i m not making you break your holidays :) The7thdr (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can get a connection every now and then 7th ... its just spotty...This is a contentious article, and you're making a very large addition. Not only was there no agreement for the studies, there was no agreement for a new section. Since you've stated that you've looked at the archives you'll know there are concerns with some of these studies like the Otis study. Are you playing fair, 7th.;o)(olive (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I always play fair Olive. As to "issues" with the studies, as you are aware there are "issues" and criticisms with every TM study in this article - all recorded in the academic literature. If we were to exclude every study on that basis your research section would be none existent. It is not up to WIKI contributors to decide whether reliable resourced - and relevant - research should be included or not. If it exists it exists - whether the TM movement likes that or not. The criticisms of TM can be found amongst all meditative practices - this is one of the possible consequences of meditation. The only reason that you - as a representative of MUM and the TM "movement" and your organization are so upset by this is that you both deny that such adverse affects exist and that - it might be argued - TM is so poor at addressing them in meditors (but this would be expected if your movement claim they do not exist).

Just because TM (Inc) dislikes the idea does not mean that WIKI readers should not be made aware of the issues. This is an encyclopedic entry after all and not a TM promotional brochure.. Now, you must excuse me but I seem to have a dose of flu. I hope a bunch of TMers are not doing what what you did to Tony Blair and bouncing bad thoughts at me with you super dupa bouncing occult powers :-) The7thdr (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah 7th... ad hominem attacks aren't in order. I didn't say we shouldn't use the negative studies. Please reread what I said. I am requesting discussion or agreement before a single editor adds a new and large section to a contentious article. We need to look at studies added as has been done in the past and we need to consider WP:Weight among other things. Hope you feel much better soon.(olive (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

olive they were not ad hominem attacks at all - some were true and others my silly sense of humor - of which I am sure someone of your obvious intelligence worked out :). There are no guidelines suggesting the addition of a new subsection in this article needs to be discussed in advance. As I have said, must WIKI editors do not have large amount of time to spend on editing. I am also trying to put something together for the entry on Mozart's four earlier piano concertos, so am a tad distracted. Your welcome to pop along and help however if your feeling bored - am sure it is something we might agree a little more about :) As to citing WP:Weight I await with bated breath to see where this one is going :-). And thank you for your kind words. I'm off to do 20 minutes or so meditation. It might not help with the flu but I might at least feel a tad better over-all :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Otis Study is not peer reviewed. Mentioning it at all is not Wikipedia compliant. There are 350 and growing peer reviewed studies on TM...and then the one non peer reviewed Otis study... That's undue weight no matter how you slice it. On top of that we have a lot of text on the Otis study...more undue weight. Not so exciting, just straight up Wikipedia policy so I guess you can let your breath out.:o)(olive (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

A detailed analysis of the mentioned studies by Otis, Lazarus, etc. can be found at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. If we are going to add this section on adverse effects, then I would like to also include these discussions on the research by Orme-Johnson. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, is that OJ, long time TM, whos research makes up the majority of the materiel that finds TM having positive results? From his personal website? Who also counters the CULT label in this article by citing non peer reviewed studies conducted as graduate thesis? The7thdr (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling as it were and to confirm that i am playing fair and this is not all one sided:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

I do keep asking for the guidlines that would exclude Otis, et al, but let me start with the guielines that would exclude OJ - To g —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through some of the talk page archives regarding Otis, and I saw many assertions that non-peer reviewed studies are not permitted. But I never saw a link to an actual policy or guideline. Is there one that applies to this situation? BTW, another way of gauging the value of a source, particularly an academic one, is by counting how many times it's been cited. Has the Otis paper been cited by others?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Olive: Indeed, I am breathing again and it feels a bit of anticlimax alas :-). Would need to agree with WILL, what policy specifically stops an inclusion of a study, that is cited in many textbooks and and research papers, because it is not peer-reviewed again? Would that mean that much of the material in WIKI needs to be deleted? Also, looking at the history of this article - i see that the studies cited by OJ to counter claims of TM being a CULT were graduate thesis yet you argued - successfully - for their inclusion, despite the fact they are obviously not peer reviewed. Should these, under whatever policy you are citing now, be removed? Indeed, what not the entire OJ argument need to be deleted?

Will: the SRI study has been cited hundreds of times in many papers and academic books on the subject of meditation. Indeed, one of the books which cites it has been used by TM editors in the past as a reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

olive, as to undue weight: it summarizes a very long and detailed survey which intruth includes a lot more relevant information; this is the reason that it takes up four lines. I notice you did not raise the same objection regarding the:

^ James W. Anderson1, Chunxu Liu and Richard J. Kryscio, "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis,"

verses

^ Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N,Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. "Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research".

studies. whereby the study that found TM research was POOR examined 880 such studies but the one that thought they were not POOR only looked at 19 VERY carefully selected ones? Yet the first here mentioned consists of 3 lines of text and the pro tm one (funded by MUM and with the wages of one of the researchers paid by one of TMs biggest individual funders) consist of 6 lines of text. An oversight nodoubt? :) The7thdr (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009

I am fairly new to this but I must say I enjoy the lively discussion on these pages. I was under the impression that WP:WEIGHT meant, essentially that if a majority of studies supports something, and a minority disputes it, they should be mentioned proportionally. To me that is an appropriate way of presenting things. Also, statements about studies being "poor", or "more important" (I have seen both in this discussion) should be substantiated or they are simply POV. To quote from Wikipedia: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. " By all means let's include relevant studies, but let's reach a consensus first.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your view of "weight" is roughly correct. But the majority viewpoint is hard to establish. Is it reflected in scientiic studies written by MUM staff? Perhaps. It may be that the majority of people in the world have a view that different from what's expressed in those studies. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints should be included. Consensus is important, but it can't override NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke: use of POV tends not to refer to discussion in the talk pages - if we applied POV to talk no one would ever say anything in here :). POV really should be about what is within the article. For example Olive edited my entry a moment ago because she considered it POV within the article. And on reflection i would agree with her :)

Again, your description regarding weight is only partly true. For example, all of the studies findings that I quote in the new section are not inline with MUM funded research - which is the majority of TM research - because MUM has stayed away from these subjects in general. Try and find for example - MUM funded research on the impact of TM on Schizophrenic patients? I think you will draw a blank. Equally, try and find a MUM sponsored study like the SRI one. Again, they simply to not exist. There are also, very stringent guidelines regarding research made by companies on profit making "products". Whether TM want to admit it or not, TM is a "product"; one that makes clear statements about it's health applications (indeed a muti-trillion dollar "product"). However, it is an unusual product in that it has its own university: MUM. WIKI guidelines struggle with this so far as the situation is unusual. Finally, all of the studies have been quoted hundreds of times in academic papers and books (a quick search of PUBMED would support this. Due to funding, it is actually relatively unusual to repeat such studies - they are expensive. Only companies such as TM has the resources to do so and generally such studies are not only "weighed" (forgive the pun) in TMs favor, but cover areas it feels relatively save in. Take the examples of the two meta studies I discussed above. One found TM research to be poor. The other not. Clearly the second was in response to the first; was funded by MUM; with researchers salaries paid by the Tm movement. Equally, in advance not only did it select only 19 studies compered with the others 880, but it choose these studies - as can be clearly seen by examining it;s methodology/sampling sections on the basis of the studies' "quality"!!!! The7thdr (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consistent referral to MUM sponsoring the majority of research...are there any reliable main stream sources to support this or is it just the opinion of some editors? My understanding is the extreme majority of the research and reporting in Newspapers finds Transcendental Meditation to having a positive impact in a number of different ways for the individual and ...Out of the hundreds of scientific research studies to be conducted on TM only an extreme minority of studies show negative results. This was reflected in how the research was presented before the most recent addition's were added to the TM Article and we should revert since it better reflects the mainstream and scientific understanding of TM. --Uncreated (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No it does not reflect mainstream science view of TM - the truth is that mainstream science really doesn't care; Hence the fact all of the research is conducted/funded by MUM. You really don't want to go down this path. i don't have the energy to address it within the article but will if forced. As to reliable resources that share the doubts about TMs "research"? The sociology of religious movements, By William Sims Bainbridge; "Problems with TM Research"; "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health'" , by Andrew Skolnick, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Oct. 2, 1991, vol. 266: pp. 1741-45, 1749-50 by Professor of Sociology, Barry Markovsky; Peer review analysis of the "Maharishi Effect", Evaluating Heterodox Theories . Markovsky, Barry and Fales, Evan. The University of North Carolina Press. Published December 1997 in Social Forces Volume 76 (2):511-25; "A Study in Alternative Truth" by Andrew Skolnick; The Various Implications Arising from the Practice of Transcendental Meditation: An empirical analysis of pathogenic structures as an aid in counseling. Bensheim, Germany: (Institut fur Jugend Und Gesellschaft, Ernst-Ludwig-Strasse 45, 6140.) Institute for Youth and Society, 1980 (188 pgs).; Persinger, Michael A, Norman J. Carrey and Lynn A. Suess. TM and Cult Mania (198 pages). North Quincy, Massachusetts: Christopher Publishing House, 1980.; etc, etc, etc, etc The7thdr (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Orme-Johnson, R.K Wallace and RH Schneider are current or former MUM staff. Many of the studies listed in the references were coauthored by one or another of them.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Might also mention the first person to gain "positive" TM literature into to the mainstream scientific media - nature, science, etc - Dr. Robert Keith Wallace (see nearly all of the early research in the 70's, who went onto Chair • Professor of Physiology • Director of Research at [MUM? The7thdr (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I could go on for hours but the list below of researchers work cited in this article includes their present role at MUM to the right - of course I am sure just a co-incidence and everything is aboveboard but to answer your question uncreated:

Schneider, Robert, M.D. (Director, Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention) Scharf, David (Math & Maharishi Vedic Science) Nidich, Sanford (Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention; Education) Rainforth, Maxwell (Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention) Salerno, John Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention Travis, Frederick (Chairperson, Maharishi Vedic Science) Hagelin, John (Director, Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy

The7thdr (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding in regards to the funding of alot of the research that is conducted by MUM is gained from the NIH...so to suggest some how that the "movement" is somehow behind the funding is wrong. Also my understanding is that in regards to R.K Wallace his original research that put TM on the scientific map was conducted while he was associated with UCLA and Harvard Medical school.

Could it be that researches who research TM go on to become some how affiliated with MUM because it is a University that deals with investigation into Transcendental Meditation? My understanding is that only recently with the likes of Fred Travis that MUM has actually been producing researches from within its "walls" who go on publish research on transcendental meditation ( http://www.media-newswire.com/release_1087147.html) .

Quickly looking at the research that is included in the TM article I can see that the research that is used by Wallace was conducted while he was at Harvard Medical School, There are a number of studies by Schneider but all funded by the NIH...but I also see a number of studies associated with other universities. --Uncreated (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To be play devils advocate: Indeed, it is strange how many people conduct positive research on Tm and then get a major post at MUM. The funding is indeed by NIH but - as is pointed out in this article - managed by MUM. Most - if not all - the pority sitive research conducted at other universities - a tiny percentage since MUMwas founded - is actually funded by MUM; MUM using NIH funds or also - in the case of the most recent positive meta-study on TM research - by major funders of TM (who in this case was kind enough to pay one of the researchers a salary for the length of the study) :) The7thdr (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But I am sure that nothing has ever influenced the academic integrity of any of these researchers. Indeed, I applaud Dr Wallace who was clearly never influenced by: becoming the First President of Maharishi International University, or His Excellency the Minister of Research and Development or having Dr. Robert Keith Wallace Drive, named after him, etc, etc. A lesser person might have been :-) The7thdr (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase. Otis is not peer reviewed. I assume we have all read and understand Wikipedia and reliability and verifiability, and I won't insult anyone by linking it here. Like wise, I assume we all understand peer review, and the way in which independent boards determine the legitimacy of research they publish. As well, we all know that universities hire researchers irrespective of their religious or spiritual beliefs. Research is vetted by peer review boards so whatever the researcher believes doesn't enter the picture. Further careful scrutiny of research on TM will indicate clearly that many bother institutions and researchers have carried out research on the technique. NIH funding is determined by the NIH, is not influenced by the researcher, and the researcher may take that funding anywhere they want, to any university. Thus, a friend of mine trained at MUM took his NIH grant to one of the most prestigious universities in the world. That university did not question his spiritual beliefs, his religion, his sexual orientation or his sock colour, or any other non pertinent information. They didn't have to. The NIH is independent of the researcher, and so is the peer review board who looks at the research. Calling into question peer reviewed research calls into question not only the researcher, but the peer review board and in the case of an NIH grant, the NIH itself. Not our job!

I would like to remind everyone that a proposal was on the table to replace the research itself, primary sources with secondary sources. In that case there might be some small argument for inclusion of the Otis secondary sources. However, there are multiple secondary sources for TM research and that would be included as well.

Since comments have been made about old information and research, I think most recently in the Popularity section but certainly earlier, to be consistent, the date of the Otis study, a very old study shnould be considered here.

There are multiple ways of determining mainstream and majority viewpoint per Wikipedia. Google news archives is one for secondary sources. Number of peer reviewed studies is another for primary source information. The research on TM is easily mainstream. The Otis study is not,and as per Wikipedia is in the tiny minority.

The Otis study as is, should be removed. If others think differently I'm happy to take this to RfC, informal and then formal mediation as soon as I have a stable editing situation.(olive (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

Love your "cut to the chase" Olive. The NIH have given a number of large grants to study TM over the years. It would be very strange that such a prestigious organization would continue to dole out large sums of money for studies on TM if they at all felt the research to be shoddy, biases, unprofessional. Your points are very well taken and I agree with your analysis. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me cut the chase quicker Olive: Take it to RFc. It is a reliable source, cited by multiple papers, in multiple textbooks and you know - unless you manage to pull in a bunch of TMers you would be unsuccessful in excluding it. But again, i would repeat Will's request, please point to the wiki rules that will specifically exclude it. Thanks The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I assume we have all read and understand Wikipedia and reliability and verifiability, and I won't insult anyone by linking it here. -Littleolive oil

I would not be insulted if the relevant pages are linked. In fact I requested that the policy which forbids using non-peer-reviewed studies be quoted. I am not aware of any that does so.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I equally would not be insulted - I have attempted to do the same with the Orm-Johnson removal request. I am not aware of all policies Olive and i think it would help to clarify for anyone reading this? It would seem silly - and a great waste of time - taking this to Rfc before the relevant policy was confirmed and cited. The7thdr (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that POV is fine in a discussion, but not in the article itself. The fact still remain that if there is a single study which says one thing versus hundreds, published in reputable publications, which say otherwise, we should either not mention the lone article, or, at most, mention it proportionally. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We should consider treating the MUM-related studies as more or less a single viewpoint. It should not be given excessive weight because there is no indication that it is the majority viewpoint on matters related to TM, and based on materials found in mainstream, 3rd-party sources many of the claims are viewed with skepticism.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "weight" argument that has been repeatedly advanced by the MUM and TM-related editors is fallacious, particularly when it comes to scientific studies. That there have been "hundreds" of studies of TM with "positive" results, but only a handful with "negative" results is entirely irrelevant. For example, the two meta-studies of research on meditation and hypertension showed that out of scores of studies on TM's effects on, you could count on the fingers of one hand (with a finger or two to spare) the number that had been properly conducted, sufficiently documented, and statistically significant. The "peer review" argument (I'm convinced that "peer reviewed" must be one of the advanced TM-technique mantras) also falls on its face since, as was the case in the Washington DC Maharishi Effect Study where all of the peer reviewers had ties to the TM organization, there is little meaningful outside review of the self-funded and self-published studies by TM-true believers such as DO-J. And, as soon as there is anything critical of this research published, the TM org quickly trots out a "refutation". These assertions do nothing to advance the question "what it the independent, mainstream, scientific view?" Fladrif (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the web page http://www.tm.org/national-institutes-of-health under the banner title "Universities Conducting NIH-funded research on Transcendental Meditation", you find that there are 7 studies on TM done at different universities. Not all TM research is done at MUM. --BwB (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So let me confirm of the 1000s of studies done on TM only 7 have been done at other universities apart from MUM? Only 7! And i wonder, could you conform the affiliation of the people conducting those studies? How many were TMers? How many were also MUM staff members? And who was dealing out taxpayers money as provided so kindly by NIH? An you source this to...surprise surprise MUM or is it TM.ORG :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Following the link BwB provided, I find seven studies, of which four are available online. Here are the lists of authors:

• "Effectiveness of Transcendental Meditation on Functional Capacity and Quality of Life of African Americans with Congestive Heart Failure: A Randomized Control Study"
  • Ravishankar Jayadevappa, PhD, Jerry C. Johnson, MD, Bernard S. Bloom, PhD*, Sanford Nidich, EdD, Shashank Desai, MD, Sumedha Chhatre, PhD, Donna B. Raziano, MD, and Robert H. Schneider, MD
• "Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain"
  • David W. Orme-Johnson, Robert H. Schneider, Young D. Son, Sanford Nidich, and Zang-Hee Cho
• "Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease"
  • Maura Paul-Labrador, MPH; Donna Polk, MD, MPH; James H. Dwyer, PhD†; Ivan Velasquez, MD; Sanford Nidich, PhD; Maxwell Rainforth, PhD; Robert Schneider, MD; C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD
• "Effects of Stress Reduction on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Hypertensive African Americans"
  • Amparo Castillo-Richmond, Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Robert Cook, Hector Myers, Sanford Nidich, Chinelo Haney, Maxwell Rainforth and John Salerno

So of those that can be easily checked, all four have two or more co-authors who are MUM staff. How many studies have been conducted without involvement of MUM personnel?   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that peer reviewed, published studies are most highly prized and preferred by Wiki. I am not aware of any Wiki policy that discounts that status because the peer reviewed and published research was performed by or with the assistance of scientists that practice TM or hold positions at MUM.--Kbob (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the material is being used for. In this discussion, the number of scientific studies conducted by MUM staff is being compared to the number performed by non-MUM scientists, and the asserted conclusion is that since the MUM-related papers are more numerous they represent the majority view. While the individual studies are probably reliable (I haven't really looked into the criticisms of them), the assertion that the shear number of them means that they should have far greater weight or even exclude other views is incorrect. If four people write 100 articles on a topic that doesn't mean their views outweigh those of 80 people who've written one article each.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if you were talking about works of speculations, but a study is not the expression of an opinion, it is the product of scientific analysis, derived by following specific procedures and reaching proven results. It is entirely irrelevant who obtained those results or how many people conducted the study. What matters is the study itself. In this case, a larger body of studies represent a majority, when contrasted to a single study.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed papers, while among the best available sources, are not perfect. If folks here want to argue that the prevailing scientific view of TM and TM-Sidhi is represented in studies conducted by MUM staff then we can keep arguing the point. The question here is how much space to devote to a paper that challenges the MUM view. I think it's fine to represent the MUM view too. NPOV requires all significant viewpoints, and the Otis paper does not represent a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will I must say I disagree with your assessment, that concluding that published research by staff at MUM or research published by staff at other universities working in conjunction with MUM staff represent a single view point is a type of OR in my mind...what view point are they representing?

Not considering that though I find that Otis's research is superseded by these three studies which as far as I know have no MUM related staff involved:

Ottoson, J-O. Swedish National Health Board Report on Transcendental Meditation. 1977; Socialstyrelesen D: nr SN3_9_1194/73

Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74

Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 1990, 32: 656

--Uncreated (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say that one set of research necessarily supersedes other research, but having some non-MUM research in the article will definitely improve it.   Will Beback  talk 

I missed your first quesiton (I've de-indented it to make it clearer). As for the view of the MUM staff, have any of them published research that doesn't support the view that TM has a positive effect on health and well-being? Good scientists will publish their results even when it contradicts their hypotheses. Other researchers, like those who do paid studies on behalf of drug companies, have been criticized for not publishing their studies when the conclusions aren't in line with the expected results. So have the hundreds of studies by MUM staff been uniform in their findings of the efficacy of TM?   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I"m sorry Will but you are way off base on this one. You are creating divisions of research in your own mind that do not exist in the scientific community. Both Wiki and the scientific community highly prize peer reviewed, published research. We don't decide Wiki WP:WEIGHT based on some arbitrary assessment as to the location of the research facility or the personal lifestyle about one or more of the scientists conducting the research.--Kbob (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Studies and mcientific/medical literature on the adverse effects of TM

I will try this one more time :-). There are no other studies like Otis' - non, nada, zilch. Hundreds of other studies don't say the opposite because they don't exist The7thdr (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In a randomized study done at Stanford Research Institute, every 20th member of all 40,000 individuals on the Students International Meditation Society's (TM's parent organization at that time) mailing list were mailed a survey. Of the 1,900 people surveyed, 47 percent responded. The survey included both a self-concept word list (the Descriptive Personality List) and a checklist of physical and behavioral symptoms (the Physical and Behavioral Inventory) The results found that while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints then the experienced meditiatiors, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM. Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%; confusion, 7.2%; depression, 8.1%; emotional stability, 4.5%; frustration, 9.0%; physical and mental tension, 8.1%; procrastination, 7.2%; restlessness, 9.0%; suspiciousness, 6.3%; tolerance of others, 4.5%; and withdrawal, 7.2%.

A detailed analysis of this study is presented by David Orme-Johnson at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. It is well worth reading to understand the study and how the results have been misrepresented by Otis. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As might be expected from these findings, Otis has concluded that the longer a person stays in TM and the more committed a person becomes to TM as a way of life, the greater is the likelihood that he or she will experience adverse effects.

In his paper, "Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental meditation", Lazarus reported that psychiatric problems such as severe depression and schizophrenic breakdown may be precipitated by TM. He concluded by stating that while TM may have clinical benefits in certain cases it is clearly contraindicated in others.

A detailed analysis of this study is presented by David Orme-Johnson at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Lazarus. More good stuff showing how this study is unreliable. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

From another clinical case study review, French, Schmid and Ingalls, reported that anxiety, tension, anger, and other disturbing experiences can occur during and after TM

Carrington and Ephron reported complaints from TM meditators who felt themselves overwhelmed by negative and unpleasant thoughts during meditation

In a study by Glueck and Stroebel they found that while some subjects could cope with what they described as the release of repressed subconscious impressions from the TM practice, others were unable to. Indeed, of the 110 subjects taking part in this study two made independent suicide attempts in the first two days after beginning the TM program.

David Orme-Johnson reviews the Glueck and Strobel paper here: http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Glueck_75_Comp_Psychiatry Bigweeboy (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that peer reviewed, published studies are most highly prized and preferred by Wiki. I am not aware of any Wiki policy that discounts that status because the peer reviewed and published research was performed by or with the assistance of scientists that practice TM or hold positions at MUM.--Kbob (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) comment reposted above----Kbob (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have become a little lost in the conversation here Kbob. This relates to the citiques of TM reseach to be added soon - please see section below. By the way, regarding citing directly from Peer reviewed studies - the truth is that wiki policy regrading "medical/health related articles is different. The reason for this - and I can assure this is the case in "real life also - the potential abuse of using peer reviewed researchh directly. In truth with TMs obsession with citing peer reviewed papers directly the entire article is in breach of WIKI guidelines ref medical articles I quote:

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied to your comment elsewhere here Kbob - the sections are getting rather long and more difficult to navigate I feel: I would like to add to WILLs responce:

By the way, regarding citing directly from Peer reviewed studies - the truth is that wiki policy regrading "medical/health related articles is different. The reason for this - and I can assure this is the case in "real life also - the potential abuse of using peer reviewed research directly. In truth with TMs obsession with citing peer reviewed papers directly the entire article is in breach of WIKI guidelines ref medical articles I quote:

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this thinking is way off base. You are creating divisions of research in your own mind that do not exist in the scientific community. Both Wiki and the scientific community highly prize peer reviewed, published research. We don't decide Wiki WP:WEIGHT based on some arbitrary assessment as to the location of the research facility or the personal lifestyle about one or more of the scientists conducting the research.--Kbob (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob for this very rational point. When a research study is sent to a reputable peer-reviewed journal the editors send it out to other scientists for examination to make sure the science is correct, the methodologies employed are correct, the analysis sound, etc. When they journal is satisfied that the research meet these standards, then they publish the paper. When we have many, many TM studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, can we not at least agree that these studies have satisfied the established scientific community as to their method, etc? If some scientists submit a study/paper to a peer-review journal, and the article fails to get published, then we must also agree that the the established scientific community does not find it acceptable. It is the scientific community itself that monitors the credibility of scientific research. (Not Wiki editors). It therefore seems reasonable to me that one TM research published in a reputable peer-review journals must carry more weight than when a study is not peer-reviewed. --BwB (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)