Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 11

message: I don't mind if the intro says something that is more qualified, such as "Maharishi describes the TM technique as being effortless, and that this effortless distinguishes it from other techniques that involve concentrion or contemplation."  Tanaats 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this. Want to make the change? I guess either in the intro or where Sethie put it is OK with me. Would be nice to get an opinion from Purple Iris, since she's the one who wrote that version. But she hasn't been around lately.TimidGuy 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effortlessness 

message: The second paragraph below seems to be confused:
 In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that under the Establishment Clause[1] of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[2] could not be taught in New Jersey public schools. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. The lower court based its decision in part on its examination of the puja ceremony that is performed by teachers of Transcendental Meditation prior to giving instruction. The appellate court said that the puja wasn't an issue.
The TM movement states the puja is a ceremony of gratitude. Judge Meanor, the lower court judge, was concerned with the portion of the ceremony in which Guru Dev, Maharishi's teacher, is praised as "the Lord," as "Him" and as Eternal and perfect.[62] At the appellate level, Judge Adams emphasized the secular nature of the ceremony, referring to it as “a secular puja, quite common in Eastern cultures” and distinguished it from unlawful school prayer because: “(a) the Puja was never performed in a school classroom, or even on government property; (b) it was never performed during school hours, but only on a Sunday; (c) it was performed only once in the case of each student; (d) it was entirely in Sanskrit, with neither the student nor, apparently, the teacher who chanted it, knowing what the foreign words meant. Moreover, the elements of involuntariness present in Engel and Schempp are wholly absent here.” [63] 
As it says in the first para, the final ruling was by a Federal Circuit Court.  It's ruling was to confirm the decision of the lower court.  The injunction issued by the Jude Meanor against teaching SCI in NJ public schools is still in effect today.
The only way Judge Adams could have issued that statement is if we was the author of a minority opinion, but we have no cite for that.  Unless someone can explain why I am confused about this, and unless we can find a cite for the second para, I think that the second para needs to come out.  Tanaats 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Malnak v. Yogi overturned? 

message: The second paragraph below seems to be confused:
 In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that under the Establishment Clause[1] of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[2] could not be taught in New Jersey public schools. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. The lower court based its decision in part on its examination of the puja ceremony that is performed by teachers of Transcendental Meditation prior to giving instruction. The appellate court said that the puja wasn't an issue.
The TM movement states the puja is a ceremony of gratitude. Judge Meanor, the lower court judge, was concerned with the portion of the ceremony in which Guru Dev, Maharishi's teacher, is praised as "the Lord," as "Him" and as Eternal and perfect.[62] At the appellate level, Judge Adams emphasized the secular nature of the ceremony, referring to it as “a secular puja, quite common in Eastern cultures” and distinguished it from unlawful school prayer because: “(a) the Puja was never performed in a school classroom, or even on government property; (b) it was never performed during school hours, but only on a Sunday; (c) it was performed only once in the case of each student; (d) it was entirely in Sanskrit, with neither the student nor, apparently, the teacher who chanted it, knowing what the foreign words meant. Moreover, the elements of involuntariness present in Engel and Schempp are wholly absent here.” [63] 
As it says in the first para, the final ruling was by a Federal Circuit Court.  It's ruling was to confirm the decision of the lower court.  The injunction issued by the Jude Meanor against teaching SCI in NJ public schools is still in effect today.
The only way Judge Adams could have issued that statement is if we was the author of a minority opinion, but we have no cite for that.  Unless someone can explain why I am confused about this, and unless we can find a cite for the second para, I think that the second para needs to come out.  Tanaats 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's as I understand it -- Judge Adams wrote a concurring opinion regarding the teaching of TM AND SCI in NJ public schools but said that the puja wasn't an issue. TimidGuy 12:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was Judge Adams' role in Malnak v. Yogi? 

message: I now have some court papers in hand, as well as the original JAMA article, the article by Skolnick, and the published rebuttals. I'd like to gradually add some detail to this section.TimidGuy 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  BTW I think that the JAMA material probably belongs in its own section.  It is fairly large.  Tanaats 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tanaats. Seems like a good idea. TimidGuy 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAMA suit 

message: Olive says above that "TMO and TM Movement are outdated terms, within this organization."  What would be the proposed alternatives? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives for "TM organization" and "TM Movement"

message: Olive, suggests that we move 'Related Programs' material to MVS site.  In addition, I suggest that we consolidate some of the various subarticles into a single larger MVS article (see above).  Discussion? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move pertinent material to the MVS article?

message: See initial discussion above.  Any further discussion? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment of TM-Sidhi in the main article

message: A section for Olive to expand on her proposal for the treatment of religion and spirituality in the article. Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper treatment of "religion" and "spirituality

message: Any questions about what terms are or are not currently used by the TMO are resolved here, as far as I know:
: Maharishi University of Management style guide Sparaig 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sparaig. On a related point, I came across this Wikipedia guideline regarding trademark usage: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks). It says to avoid the use of trademarks as a noun. I'd like to adhere to this guideline in this article, and as I have time will gradually edit the article to be in accord with it. TimidGuy 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says: "Avoid use of trademarks as a noun except where any other usage would be awkward." Therefore we can in fact use "Transcendental Meditation" as a noun because any other usage would be certainly be awkward. Tanaats 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means awkward syntactically. But in most cases inserting "technique" after Transcendental Meditation wouldn't create awkward syntax. TimidGuy 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would significantly change the meaning of the article in instances where "Transcendental Meditation" is used in the wider sense to refer to MMY's entire body of teachings.  This is already the subject of pending DR.  Please let's wait for that to finish first. Tanaats 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting -- whenever I read "Transcendental Meditation" in the article, I read it as the technique. Just shows our different backgrounds, I guess. Would you mind if I made this change to the sections I added, where I was clearly intending to refer to the technique? TimidGuy 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that would be a very good idea.  Tanaats 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks! We can take up the other issue later. TimidGuy 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official list of terms used by TM organization (MUM) 

message: Whew!.... I didn't delete this section just a few words I think it was something like "TM technique  is described by the TM organization..... this seemed awkward, so I took out two or three words to "TM is described . I also felt that we are describing this according to the organization , so this was implied ....that is, who said this .....  
The citation to the TM site  explains TM as experiential and practical ..... Tanaats objected to these words I understood, so I was covering my basis by  finding a source for them.
Thankyou Tanaats..I realized after I has hit saved that "signed" was the wrong word to use here and also that I had looked in the wrong place .... but some of my edit info had disappeared so feeling confused by this .... apologies for this 
:and hey I don't care about this end line if all are happy with it .... it was simply meant to remove awkwardness not to create a problem (olive 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On changes to end of intro TM article 

message: Sethie, I feel your comment in your statement is deceptive. Carroll clearly explains that "occult" is his umbrella term to refer to the topics in his dictionary. And in his intro he is clearly stating that he doesn't intend to present a balanced view in the book. My use of an ellipsis was appropriate, rather than taking space in my Statement to explain Carroll's use of the term "occult." TimidGuy 13:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it provides an interesting context that your quote left out. How does including the full quote require an explination? If you also read the entire introduction, you'll see that Carrol sees his dictionary as a COUNTER-balance to excessive POV pushing by occult and pseduoscience, something else you neglected to mention. Regardless, you arguement that having a POV rules out a source is bunk. If it were the case, we would need to remove EVERY TM Organization citation. Sethie 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carroll's use of term "occult" 

message: I have rarely been bothering to make edit comments when posting here in Talk.  I didn't think it necessary since we were always either making a new comment or replying to someone else's comment, and we didn't need an edit comment to tell us which it was.  
However TimidGuy makes edit comments as a regular practice.  I have come to realize that TimidGuy's edit comments are actually very helpful.  When I look in History, by seeing his edit comments I am often reminded that I have already read that diff.  This is especially helpful when his edit is the first one in History but I can't remember whether or not I've already read the diff.  Because of his edit comments I can often remember that I've already read the diff and therefore I don't have to waste even a little bit of time by looking at it again.
May I suggest that we all start making edit comments here?  They wouldn't have to be very long.  Thanks. Tanaats 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion about edit comments here in Talk 

message: Please refer to Maharishi Vedic Science site/article for viewing, comments, etc.(olive 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Olive. TimidGuy 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Tanaats 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension and reorganization of MVS and MVS material as per discussion 

message: I had fallen under a bad influence awhile back when I was led to believe that deletion of well-sourced material was ipso facto "vandalism".  I have somewhat recently been advised by Bishonen that content edits that are not blatent obvious deliberate destruction are not considered to be "vandalism."  I apologize to Roseapple and the other editor (I have forgotten exactly who it was) who I threatened with the "vandalism" stick.  Tanaats 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, heck. Then I guess I ought to apologize to you for suggesting your edits were tantamount to vandalism the first time you appeared in the article. : ) TimidGuy 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  Thanks. :) Tanaats 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology re "vandalism" 

message: I wanted to make sure that everyone saw the information under discussion on the MVS site. I had said that if there were no objections by Friday I would go ahead and delete the old material off of the TM site. I realized that
some of you may not have seen that discussion so, I'll wait until Monday and then delete if there are no objections.(63.162.81.220 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry forgot to log in above is my statement(olive 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll want to leave a brief summary of the MVS article in the TM article. Tanaats 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, another thought,in the interest of brevity.... MVS is wiki-linked in the TM article, and the MVS article links back to the TM article isn't that enough. I feel as if another summary will be redundant and overkill .... what say you all. (olive 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Olive, for doing this. The MVS article is looking good. I agree that the Other Programs section could be greatly condensed. If others don't agree to deletion, seems like you could again put TM in the context of Maharishi Vedic Science, and then list the facets, but leave out the brief explanations of each. If readers want to know more, they can go the the MVS page. TimidGuy 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mind, Olive. Tanaats 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Hi, Betty. I reverted the comments you inserted into the aricle. Note that we've already discussed at length on this page whether it's appropriate or necessary to identify the affiliation of David Orme-Johnson and the other authors of the JSBP article with the TM organization. Generally, Tanaats, Duedilly, and I feel that it's Original Research to do so. And the discussion has also suggested that it shows a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
If you'd like to improve the article, it would be great if you could write a citation for the NRC report. It's been tagged "citation needed" for months. Also, we need to address the fact that the 1991 report was about meditation in general. It's not clear what implications it has regarding the research specifically on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, it discredits all meditation research.Sparaig 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to David Orme-Johnson, the 1991 NRC report was a review on meditation in general and failed to examine over 500 studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique. The report was in the form of a book evaluating research on human potential. A 13-page chapter dealt with research on meditation. Seems like this paragraph could be deleted until someone finds a citation -- and offers a rationale for mentioning this report. TimidGuy 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think its fine, and as you mentioned should probably not have been on the TM pages but on a site devoted to more general material on meditation.(olive 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRC report 

message: I'll be bold and propose a solution. This represents how I would like to see the article. My goal isn't to remove all critical material, but to conform to the standards of Wikipedia and to proper encyclopedia style.
* delete all of the critical material in the cult section, because it's poorly sourced and weakly written and replace it with a summary of the points made in Persinger's book, which I view as a proper secondary source. This would entail briefly defining a cult (whatever that is, e.g., charismatic leader, millenarian vision) and giving examples related to Transcendental Meditation. And then balancing that with the current David OJ section.
* delete the current religion section, which I feel is weak OR based on primary sources and replace it with arguments on both sides of the issue from proper scholarly sources. We could expedite the research of this by talking to someone such as a professor of religious studies at Yale who does TM and who could likely point us to scholarly sources on both sides of the issue and who could maybe even help us summarize them.
* combine all of the court cases into one heading and shorten them, giving each one its own subheading.
* move the science references from the criticism section to the research section above and shorten them so that they don't violate undue weight (as I feel as is currently the case by giving them their own section and quoting extensively from them). We could delete the questionable 1991 NRC report but add a reference to the 1994 report (which isn't currently in the article) and balance it by noting that it contradicts the metaanalysis done by a professor at Stanford.
* leave the section on Tm teacher grievances.
* figure out what to do with Pagels. Right now there's no source given. It seems inapppriate to use this material. According to the letter on Trancenet, Pagels says, "My comments here are intended to serve as an affidavit in the civil action No. 85-2849, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They may not be used or published for any other purpose without my written permission." He died in 1988, so it's unlikely that he gave permission to use these comments in Wikipedia.
Anyway, just tossing out this proposal. TimidGuy 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of those who are trying to learn from these discussions, may I ask for more comments on TimidGuy's proposals above? (Especially -Ste|vertigo) Thank you Roseapple 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the mediation has become very dilute because many other discussions are also going on.Any chance of taking a look at TimidGuy's  points/proposals and focusing attention there and on  the mediation. Many of the other discussions might reach a state of resolution if we do this.(olive 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation proposal

message: We probably want to postpone this discussion while mediation is going on, but I didn't want to lose the thread:
:My editing of remakrs on German study was reverted, partly because the citation didn't support the remarks. That's certainly true since the citation no longer mentions that study.Transcendental Meditation, John Carroll, The Skeptic's Dictionary Sparaig 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch regarding Skepdic.  I've removed the now irrelevant cite and replaced it with a "fact" tag.  If no one comes up with another citation in a reasonable amount of time then IMO we should take the whole subsection out. Tanaats 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it time to take this out? Or we could take it out and paste it here on the Talk page until someone finds a citation. TimidGuy 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I move we take it out. Tanaats did suggest this three weeks ago and so far no citation....we could also paste it on the talk page if anyone feels that a citation may come up, but I'm not sure that's necessary - either way seems like its time to move it. (olive 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it stays in, the section heading should reflect the main idea of the paragraph, which is that a study was deemed inconclusive and biased. IMO the section should just be removed. Roseapple 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring discussion of temporarily removing German study/court case