Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 13

message: The religion rewrite has been sitting here on talk pages for quite awhile,without changes, so I guess the time has come to move it. I will add the first setion of the rewrite to the old section in a few days.Any changes can be made now before the move or after in the article.(olive 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the record show you consistently failed to really address the points I repeatedly made and are an editor with COI suppressing information. By all means, put it there and ignore what I said, more grist for the inevitable mill. Take all the rope you want. --Dseer 07:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I did address your concerns, ad nauseam, but I don't agree with them necessarily and as I said if you don't like it change it in the accepted Wikipedia manner, and with discussion. You consistently attack with the same comments, COI, but you fail to add or change anything. This material has been sitting here for a very long time and still you do nothing but threaten.  This is a collaborative effort. Talk is cheap. I don't see any  effort on your part to work collaboratively, which make me suspect your motives. As I said this material can be changed now or later after it is added to the article. I will be working on it in a few days,and will add a better reference for the Cardinal Sin material as suggested by EdJohnson to prepare the move from "talk" to the main article.(olive 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ps  when I say work collaboratively I respect the fact that you comment but I refer to the fact that you never change or add anything.(olive 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Roseapple. I noticed the change you made in removing "so-called" from the religion section. I am ok with this but initially I used that wording with the sense that although TM people might understand and accept the language here others might not. I don't mind if everyone thinks its ok.(olive 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion section 

message: I have deleted for now the following lines from the Cult section.
A fourth, by Kevin Garvey, a member of the American Family Foundation, makes accusations of spousal and child abuse, but doesn't present evidence.Transcendental Meditation
*The reference is unclear as is the verifiability of the material cited.
a.The writer of the article cited does not present evidence.
b.When I went to look for the material it is unclear as to which of the journal issues contains this particular reference. 
c.Added to this there is no evidence anywhere else that this is a true statement.
There is no way at this point to verify this statement, and there is difficulty in verifying the source.Although one could argue that the source is the concern not the statement, I would like to suggest there is a point where some verifiable truth should be considered.(olive 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the translation of the title of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France is a loose, not quite accurate translation. It more accurately should read on sects in France. Secte translates as sect, and the French have a word for cult which is culte . I noted this on the "parent page" as well. Since the parent page is part of a French project we should probably be accurate in translation and that impacts our translation here. Some thought on this. 
PS TimidGuy .... yes thank you. Shorter title much better I think.(olive 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult section 

message: After attempting  in a couple of different places to find a spot for the Kellett reference in this section, I realized the real problem was that this is not published  - as far as I can see -and although Kellett was a TM teacher he is not an expert on the areas he is talking about such as religion and cult to name a couple. This is a personal experience and no matter how legitimate the author might feel this is, this still is as far as I can tell not strong enough as a reference as an encyclopedic entry (olive 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His web site is prominent in the External Links section, so his point of view is still represented. And that may be a more appropriate place for his web site, since, as you say, it doesn't meet the guidelines. TimidGuy 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good deletion, Sethie. I had noticed this as I went through reorganizing this material but went back and forth in my own mind about whether to leave this part in place - whether it was just me seeing this viewpoint. I think you're right this could be seen as a discredit to Scientology just because of how it is worded. Thanks.(olive 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Issue 

message: I deleted the information recently added about other forms of meditation, since this article is about Transcendental Meditation. The purpose of this section has been not to describe other alternative forms of meditation, of which there are many, but to mention teachers of Transcendental Meditation who are unhappy with charging $2,500 for people to learn and who have now begun offering their own form of meditation. It's this that makes it relevant to the article. TimidGuy 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TM alternatives section 

message: Comparing TM-articles with articles on other let’s say health practices we can see: "History" is almost always put to the end of an article (before controversies). I think this is a good idea. When I ask a encyclopedia soemthing about Reflexology I would like to read first what it is, second which theory stands behind it, third what research has found out. In a later turn I may be interested in history and controversy. I suggested also to change the german article in this way.  -- Josha52 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Seems fine to me. Maybe wait and see what Olive thinks. She's been doing a lot of work on the article and may have an opinion. TimidGuy 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this makes sense to me. In a sense what is first in the article should perhaps be what is current. History, and Controversies contain some dated material and may only be of interest in a historical sense. I am unfortunately only onîne for short periods so might have trouble making this change .... so my vote is to go ahead and make the change whoever is available.(olive 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Josha52 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History more to the end?

message: I am looking for copyright free pictures to be used in Wikipedia: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (what about the picture on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? It could not be found in WikiCommon!) and one of Keith Wallace (I have asked him already). Any idea? Josha52 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Josha. Will give it some thought. Am working on getting some photos of Maharishi. Maybe also a photo of someone meditating! TimidGuy 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the permission to use picture from here, but: think this would not be a good idea anymore. Because: Uploading to Wikipedia means, that the picture becomes public domain (as far as I Commons understand). Everybody is able then to use those pictures as he likes. Or am I wrong? --Josha52 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that is correct. TimidGuy 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures needed 

message: Seems not to be sufficient. Reader may ask why it is expansive in comparison to other techniques. Proposal (please correct bad english):
Now:
"... at the time of instruction, a process which requires a fee after introductory presentations ($2,500 as of 2006),[5] and generally takes five to seven days."
More precise:
"... at the time of instruction. The Transcendental Meditation technique is taught in a worldwide standardisized 7-step-procedure. It includes two introductory lectures and a personal interview (free) and four consecutive 2-hour-instructions followed by an follow-up ten days after. Every course graduate is eligible for lifetime follow-up at any Transcendental Meditation center for checkings of correctedness of meditation practice. Course fee inclusive follow up requires $2,500 as of 2006.[5]"
Reasoning: 
#Standardized procedure is specifc to T.M. 
#Price can only be understood in regard to service.
#Instruction is not only instruction into T.M. (learning the technique), but verifying the correctness of the practice, learning the mechanics of the Transcendental Meditation technique and learning the mechanics of the development of higher states of consciousness. --Josha52 08:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Josha, for the suggestion. We'd need a reference for that information. And we'd need to be cautious about getting too detailed, because that may make it sound too promotional. I think the part about standardized procedure is good. It's mainly the amount of detail about followup. I especially like specifying four consecutive 2-hour instructions. Otherwise it sounds like the person is learning full time for five to seven days. I may go ahead and make that change. TimidGuy 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure 

message: Again in the interest of clarity and brevity, I propose condensing the second paragraph in the "cult" section putting it at the end of what is now the third paragraph in that section.  
The condensation would read: 
Transcendental Meditation, along with other groups such as Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and the Church of Scientology were named as cult/sects in France in 1995, in The Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France generated by the National Assembly of France. (with link to document)Roseapple 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Admin Jossi added much of that qualifying material, seeking to show the weakness of the claim and how the government itself no longer credits it. A good way to handle it would be to condense it as you've done and put the deleted material in the footnote. I know how to do that. TimidGuy 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to condense the last paragraph in the cult section.  If the article is going to say Orme Johnson refers to "dissertations done at York University and Harvard" then a reference for those dissertations should be included in the article.  I think the paragraph can read simply:
Researcher David Orme-Johnson, who has authored over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique (most of them peer-reviewed), argues that the Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult. He notes that research shows that the Transcendental Meditation technique produces effects in practitioners that are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly become involved in cults.  He observes that cults are generally characterized as closed systems, directly opposite to the Transcendental Meditation organization, which submits to the rigors of scientific testing, continues to encourage research by independent universities and research organizations, publishes consistently in peer-reviewed journals, and participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide.
Roseapple 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks much for rewriting this, Roseapple. Seems like we need to include some facet of his main point that the research using measures such as "field independence" show greater autonomy and independence of thought among those who practice TM rather than fostering cult-like behavior. That may be the more important point than submitting to the rigors of scientific testing. (Though that's an important point, too.) I agree that it would be good to condense this paragraph. TimidGuy 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if I completely understood your suggestion. When you say that a reference to those studies should be included in the article, do you mean adding that to the research section? TimidGuy 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that if the article refers to "dissertations done at Harvard and York University" those studies should be referenced specifically,  in the article itself, or in a footnote.  Wouldn't that be encyclopedia calibre writing? Roseapple 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. Will work on it. TimidGuy 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather prefer the specific references to Harvard and York Universities.  Although we could specifically reference these studies in the main body of this section, my understanding is that we are "reporting" on Orme- Johnson in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than writing the research paper ourselves. Orme Johnson has been established as a reliable source so we can refer to his comments on this topic noting that he references these universities. The reader can then refer to Orme Johnson should he want to find out more.We could, then, if needed add the studies to"further reading". Referring to universities in general would present exactly the same problem were it necessary to reference what universities we are talking about and what studies. Referring to these schools specifically has impact and as well is more specific. This was my understanding anyway of how this works.(olive 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone tell me what the first paragraph in this section means? Rumiton 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean the first sentence in the cult section of the article, it's a summary of the rest of the section.  Not sure if that's what you were referring to. Roseapple 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant this: Critics suggest that the TM technique and related programs display cult–like tendencies, while research studies on the technique suggest human development in practitioners of the technique to be directly opposed to cult-like behaviours and tendencies. Try as I might, I can extract no meaning from it. Rumiton 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now that you mention it, the syntax of the second clause is indeed challenging. Will try to fix. TimidGuy 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult Section

message: Originally the statement, "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one aspect of "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness, which are the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science." was used in the opening paragraph of this article to indicate an organizational point, that is, that TM was one arm of a two armed approach to the development of consciousness as outlined by Maharishi.One arm the technique itself was experiential, the other arm referred to the practical aspects of the Vedic Science such as education, archcitecture and so forth.
For me this fits more appropriately in the first paragraph were the reader immediately becomes aware of the overall organizational form of Vedic Science  That said if anyone feels strongly about this well, it could be reverted.(olive 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Organizational point 

message: I wonder if this topic placed where it is now is misplaced. Procedure seems to deal with the actual steps of teaching whereas dhyana is more about theory Would it be better placed under Theory of Consciousness? If no one minds I'd like to try it there.(olive 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make the same change. But when I went to put it into the Theory section, I couldn't figure out a way to integrate it. So ended up putting  it back in Procedure. In one sense, it's a procedure in that it note the effortless procedure that one uses. But fine to relocate if you can integrate it into Theory. TimidGuy 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did make the change to dhyana but I feel there is a lot of material in the section I have moved it into. I think we could remove some of it as unnecessary and possibly perhaps too esoteric for those not familiar with the terms and with meditation. Any thoughts on this?(olive 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Olive. I think it works well in that location. I'm really glad you made this change. TimidGuy 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  concerning Dyhana 

message: I removed the mention of breath suspension because later research found that the respiratory "suspension" was not actually a complete cessation of breathing, but rather a continual slight inspiration of many small breaths. I left the study on the ectrophysiologic characteristics of respiratory suspension periods because that one was describing other parameters during these periods, regardless of whether it was thought to be suspension or a continual slight inspiration of many small breaths. TimidGuy 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breath suspension 

message: I noticed after changes in the TM intro that there was a repetition of "the"and that the "taught six million" sentence seems out of place .... I made a quick change but am not attached should want to revert in favour of a better, or the older version.(olive 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro. 

message: I think we need to discuss the recent changes to the lead. In my opinion, they are incorrect and aren't sourced. According to the trademark registry, "Transcendental Meditation" is a trademark held by Maharishi Vedic Development Education Corporatation, which has the exclusive right to determine the meaning of the phrase. The only use it has consented to is as the name of a specific meditative technique taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In addition, all of the scientific literature -- hundreds of published studies -- uses the term exclusively in this sense. This is also true of its usage in popular media such as newspapers and magazines. It's never used to name the organization and always used to refer to the meditation technique. This has been discussed and resolved on these Talk pages in the past. TimidGuy 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trademarks do not give an "exclusive right to determine the meaning of the phrase". They merely give the exclusive right to market products under this name. The name clearly refers in common use to the movement, with the technique being rather unimportant, and the associated structure of organizations being much more relevant, see for example  and  ). The current article is POV, since it does not give these aspects the space and priority they deserve. It gives undue weight to the technique and its mostly completely uncontroversial relaxing effects. How the scientific literature uses a term has no special bearing on Wikipedia. The article needs a new section Movement and organizational structure that must be at least as long as the rest of the article to eliminate the problem of undue weight. The organization is cited, it is suddenly mentioned ("The organization suggests that the technique only be learned from an authorized teacher"), but it is hardly explicitly described in the article. --rtc 11:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidence can never have a positive weight, see Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688. You can find sources talking of transcendental meditation as a movement easily if you only look for them. The organizational structure needs to be described at length in the article. And again, a trademark does not prescribe how a word should be used. If you don't know about the organization, you need to research sources and work it out. --rtc 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can understand your concern on the organization of this article. Believe me all of the editors who worked on it discussed this same point. What you see now, is pretty much the product of many discussions and includes a lot of outside assistance including a mediation.
You make an important point, in bringing up the idea of the TM movement and “common usage”. In a sense, what I discovered as I worked on this article was that essentially there was no “Movement”. That is, that common usage was just what the words say and mean. In casual conversation someone might say, “movement”, but in fact this organization is extremely complex and large and, that the term “movement” even in the beginning became a term of convenience. Even when searching for sources, if we found the term movement we generally discovered that something more specific was meant.  As we put together this article and edited all of us including opponents of TM realized we had to tease out as it were what the organization really included and somehow delineate boundaries and organization structures to clarify our material. We then had to fit it into a certain size as advised by Wikipedia standards. Even as I write, editors are still trying to cut the article down while maintaining NPOV. In a nutshell, and highly simplified, what we have here is a teacher and a technique. Most of the research was done on the technique itself, although, there certainly is research on these other aspects. So as we put together the article we looked for a way of organizing the teacher, the technique, the technologies and so on, and in the process discovered that the teacher has pretty much in some ways taken care of this himself. We find in the literature a two armed approach to the technologies one, the technique and possibly advanced aspects of that technique the TM Sidhi program –experiential, that is done for the intrinsic merit they have on the individual’s so- called consciousness. The other arm of the technologies for consciousness were and are called Vedic Science, and are the practical application of the technique and other technologies such as an approaches to education and agriculture to name two. These days the umbrella name for all of this is the Global Country of World Peace, but that could change tomorrow dependent it seems on a new addition to the practical side of things. Included in that name –“Global Country” is a system of  “government” complete with hierarchy, which runs alongside any relative government and is said to be a government of consciousness. I personally am not interested in judging any of this, nor should any of us be, since that would inject some POV, but have found it interesting to decipher the puzzle of how all of this could be organized in an encyclopedic format.
We used the same article title that has always been there and defined it as the technique to make very clear what was being written about. The rest of the article is absolutely about the technique as you noted. After many, long discussion we realized that not only was this the way the whole thing began but also this was the easiest way to write about it. The Vedic Science aspect the other side of the organization is linked and has been in the stages of development for a while. The advanced aspect of the TM technique, the TM Sidhis program has also been linked. There are hundreds of studies on the technique and some on the other technologies. On this page we have unwound the TM technique studies from the huge ball of studies that includes all of the studies. This keeps the article shorter than it could be and as the other pages for example, Vedic Science, develop, these other studies have a home there. We have also not included individuals in the organization. Yes, there is a kind of hierarchy as there is in any organization. I sure wouldn’t want to be the president of anything but someone has to do that job. Happy it’s not me…but for the most part and for our purposes these people can be included in the material about what part of the organization they administer. For example Bevan Morris is President of MUM, the university, and I think PM of the Global Country.  A page on Dr Morris would probably note this. There are many levels of administration in many countries and we haven’t touched on that in this article. A school has a head master but that would I think be included in the school area. They all belong in my mind in articles about the aspect being administered or to the person him or herself. If we hadn’t made these judgments and analyzed the organization in this way at some point, the article would now be as long as the knitted material in ‘’Like Water for Chocolate’’ as it trailed miles along a dirt road and would be just about as unwieldy.
There is no POV in this article. Were that the case the criticism section would have been removed by someone along the line, as would any other negative material. The article about TM and those linked to it, you see, are instead might I say the results and somewhat heroic effort on the part of all of the editors who have worked on it, those for and against TM, to explain and define a large and complex organization. What we say in common usage is fine I always think, but what we can squeeze into an encyclopedia has to be as clear and as concise as we can make it, and is quite another matter. In the end we have TM the technique, and links and possible links to what came after the technique.I do think one could add something about common usage ... where is the question. So there’s another way of looking at the whole thing. Best wishes.(olive 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no Wikipedia standards that advise to "fit it into a certain size", especially not if that would mean that highly relevant aspects are lost. The undue weight by strictly keeping the organizational questions in the background is definitely there and it must be fixed. Weight is not measured by the number of publications available on some aspect. If "there was no 'Movement'", how come that it was initially called "Spiritual Regeneration Movement"? If "this organization is extremely complex and large", shouldn't that be described, and be described more in detail? Shouldn't something complex and large that has an inherent relation to the topic be described appropriately and explicitly? --rtc 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Article size for details on sizing articles.  Dreadstar † 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Article size is not an excuse for undue weight. If you want to follow that guideline (which is rather unimportant and can and should be broken if it hinders appropriate presentation of relevant issues), delete half of the article which talks about the method, which can be said in fewer words, and add text about the organization instead. These are really lame excuses. --rtc 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that it should, and yes, I think we should indeed follow that guideline.  I'm sure the content can be adjusted so that it does not violate WP:UNDUE and yet fits within the size guideline.  WP:CIV, please.  Dreadstar † 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me just clarify that I'm not so certain that you are correct in your assertions that the current article violates WP:UNDUE to begin with, that is exactly what you and the other editors here need to discuss.  Dreadstar † 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The usage of "Transcendental Meditation" 

message: Trying to sort out the issues. Would really like to resolve the question of Rtc's addition saying that the term "Transcendental Meditation" also refers to the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique. If that were so, then tell me whether you think this is a correct sentence:
Transcendental Meditation has taught the Transcendental Meditation technique to 6 million people worldwide.
That sounds like a malformed sentence to me. Yet in 1970s informal usage, the following would make sense to me:
The Transcendental Meditation movement has taught the Transcendental Meditation technique to 6 million people worldwide.
So I don't see, from a linguistic perspective, how "Transcendental Meditation" can refer to the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linguistic perspective on whether the term "Transcendental Meditation" refers to the organization 

message: I realized why I don't feel comfortable with this. It's an artificial construct that can be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There's no incorporated entity by that name. To me, this creates a situation that is fertile ground for Original Research.
There are many different organizations founded in Maharishi's name in many different countries around the world. If a reliable source has lumped them together under one rubric, then fine. But if an editor cherry picks information gathered from web sites and spins it together to state something about an entity that's an artificial construct, to my mind that's a problem. (Of course, I'm not suggesting anyone here intends to do this. And again, I'm not sure this article would be the venue.) TimidGuy 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I have some final thoughts on this... famous last words. These discussions have been good for me since they have helped me remember and clarify in my own mind what and how we worked on this article. I am clearer about our process.
*Like TG I realized this phrase is artificial in that it is used " on the street" as it were but in reality does not exist as a true name for anything. You noted it is common usage for an umbrella organization. One of these umbrella organizations and maybe the one that most clearly contains the other programs is as noted earlier, The Global Country of World Peace. 
*Transcendtal Meditation, however is not an organization but is a form of meditation as the name implies. That's what this article is about.Many editors over a period of time came to an informal consensus on that. That is, this article would focus on the technique, the information that could be gatheresd on that technique and that would help create an article that was neutral 
*Rather than describing the technique as something inside an organization, I believe it might be more accurate to say the organization developed around one man, and this fundamental technique. Eventually he introduced other "technologies for consciousness" and  supporting programs  in his efforts to better the human condition . I am not arguing whether this all works or not but just that this is what happened . TM  - the technique came after or with the man. The organization was a collection of the programs that grew from that source.
*Spiritual Regeneration Movement was  an official name for the organization in its very early and less complex days  in North America. That name is no longer used.  
*One could certainly write about an umbrella organization like the Global Country, and its structure and I think there is a Wikipedia site for that.
*The links are the way, again by consensus, that editors felt the TM technique could be connected to and placed in context of a larger organizational structure. To include all of this in one article would have been impossible . The material is too extensive. The editors went to links to tie this material together.
*My fundamental concern is that in dissolving the precise meaning of terms and the boundaries this precision creates  we open the door for a mish-mash of material, difficult to place and potentially creating confusion. The many editors have already dealt with that kind of confusion and by informal consensus decided how to approach this article. What you see now is the product of the collected efforts of a group of editors who operated within the guidelines of a general agreement on how to proceed with  greatest ease  and for greatest clarity. (olive 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just cannot say how much I disagree with this. The TM techique should explicitly and extensively be "connected to and placed in context of [its] larger organizational structure", within this article. Nobody demands "To include all of this in one article". But the essential points need to be described appropriately, not just passively linked. I think that this "informal consensus" you mentioned needs to be rejected, utterly. Just being afraid of "mish-mash of material, difficult to place and potentially creating confusion" is not an argument. Such arguments are the death of all encyclopedic progress. Problems occur all the time and need to be solved, avoiding them at the cost of a severely biased and far from neutral article is not a solution. Such arguments seem foul to me. And BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the Spiritual Regeneration Movement still exists as a branch of the World Plan Executive Council. --rtc 01:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with some of your points . There is no fear here however,that's not the issue. An encyclopedia that is group=edited depends at some point on consensus. In this case the article was often frozen so that progress was almost impossible. One compromises in such a context, not because one is compromising oneself but because the article is the "thing" here and it must be alive and capable of change.The article has developed as I mentioned over many months with the input of many editors . To think otherwise would be a mistake. As well, I in no way feel this article is either biased or non-neutral.Almost every aspect has been gone over, micro-managed in a way to make sure the sources were impeccable.Outside editors have viewed the article as well so its not secret in some way. Yes, there is material out there on the technique that has not been used but much of it on closer scrutiny does not stand up to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Be sure that such material was checked by both supporters and non - supporters of TM. Placing the technique in context of its umbrella organization in this article is problematic not impossible but problematic. As well, consensus on a contentious/controversial article such as this one is mandatory.This encyclopedia depends on the group and group process so whatever you suggest will have to be dealt with in this way ....At the risk of sounding sappy .... the Wikipedia way. Although both World Plan Executive Council and Spiritual Regeneration Movement may exist "on paper" neither is active. I can check on that. If you are really interested in working on this article I suggest you check the archived discussions. This will give you insight into how the article was formed.(olive 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. As I read this over I realize that what is needed is very specific information rather than generalized information on what your concerns are.(olive 03:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that WPEC still exists as a corporate entity. If SRM ever existed as a corporate entity, I doubt that it still is. It would indeed be interesting to have an article that described all the various organizations related to Maharishi that have been founded. But it would take a huge amount of research. TimidGuy 14:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "TM movement" 

message: I'm afraid I am confused by some of your points here, rtc. I have never understood Wikipedia to be a platform for introducing arguments.I have understood it to be a vehicle for gathering and organizing information through a group editing process. I clearly feel that you have a very specific point of view here, and I am, give Wikipedia policy/guidelines not comfortable with that. I believe this article was written to show not both sides of an argument but to show a representational amount of information on any particular topic.I believe the article does show opposing views on different topics, but the very slight adjustment that happens to indicate the back and forth discourse between two positions does I think border on OR. I agree with the Wikipedia guideline you present that emphasizes verifiability. More specific references about your concerns are always helpful.(olive 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you understand Wikipedia to be no platform for introducing arguments, why are you advocating the status quo of the article? The article does exactly that; it introduces a POV argument by holding the TM organizations Point of view, as is. It does not describe its position, it adops it. I am, given Wikipedia policy/guidelines not comfortable with that. It is clearly beyond the border of NPOV. Describing "back and forth discourse between two positions" on the other hand is what NPOV is all about. OR concerns only the content of the claims held by the positions that are described. That is, a WP article must not introduce a new position. OR does not apply to the presentation of the relations between the described positions. This should be obvious, since otherwise we would be allowed only to make verbatim copies of existing encyclopedic articles from third party sources. Claiming that my imagination of the article is OR in this regard I can thus only reply tu quoque: The current version of the article does also make a decision on what should be described and with which relations, by "stating the facts". So the article in its current form is OR in this regard, too, just with a result that is not neutral. After all, WP tries to create a new encyclopedia, so it's not just natural but even necessary that original research occurs about certain aspects. We must keep the Original research just at the correct aspects (selection of sources, correct description of respective relevant positions and their relations, due weight, etc.; however, not inventing and holding new positions.) --rtc 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion on TM and "Movement" 

message: I really can't spend all day here. Am working under deadline. But maybe start a new thread to try to focus this. It seems like the key issue is fairly simple: how to present the scientific research. I don't see anything in the policies and guidelines that require it to be contextualized the way Rtc suggests. WP:V makes it clear that research is a reliable source: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." The research section doesn't violate WP:SYNTH because it's not combining points to draw a conclusion. It's simply stating what the studies themselves conclude. There's a lot of debate on the Talk pages whether research is a primary or secondary source, but the consensus right now seems to be that it lies outside this framework. And anyway, even if it were considered a primary source, which it's generally not, it still meets the guideline of how that's presented. If the research is somehow skewed, then fine to present studies that contradict it, as long as they aren't given undue weight relative to the other research. TimidGuy 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is combining points to draw a conclusion, just not in an explicit way. It does so very cleverly by suggestion. It draws the conclusion that TM is very good for health and everything and has no side-effects. Let's not argue whether this is true; what is relevant is that this implicit conclusion is there. Articles should make such conclusions explicit and attribute them. That is what I have stressed all the way. I agree completely that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the [best] sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." However, this is no article about history, science, medicine or any other academic topic. This is an article about TM, and TM is not taught at academic universities! (The universities that are under the tutelage of the TM organization are not academic.) --rtc 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think TG makes a good point in that we could take a look at what seems to be a central issue -  the research and the wording of its presentation to make sure that there is no POV. As a note: From my understanding of Wikipedia drawing any kind of conclusion or OR is not permissible. I don’t believe this article as a whole argues an implied view of TM. Conclusions are the territory of the reader. Several outside neutral editors have viewed the article and have found it to be neutral. As an aside, Maharishi University of Management is an academic institution, is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, and is a member of the Iowa Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.(olive 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you ignoring what I wrote? I said that, on a certain layer, OR (though not OR in the sense of what WP:NOR talks about, which is that no new position may be invented) is not only permitted, but inevitable, and occurs anyway, just currently not in a way that results in something that is neutral. This article has an implied view of TM, and very clearly so, in the research section, an artcile can be neutral "as a whole" only if it is neutral in all of its parts. Conclusions must not be the territory of the reader. Writing an article from such assumptions is the seedbed of POV! All conclusions must be made explicit and be attributed, and, if that is not possible, the material has to be deleted as original research completely, because of implied synthesis. All these memberships and accreditations do not help MUM from being no academic institution in the sense that I understand the word academic. If it were academic, all of its regular teachings would also be available at at least one independent academic institution. However, the MUM has certain non-standard regular teachings in its curricula that are not taught at any academic university at all. I said that there is no such thing as a neutral editor. Stop to justify the status quo of this highly problematic article and start to think about how these problems can be solved in a satisfactory way. NPOV is not an issue of formulation and the wording of the presentation of the research is not in any way at all what I am criticizing. Since you are an intelligent person, you have very well understood that. And you have well understood that I cannot and will not accept the current form of the article, and that by no means you get rid of my criticism by twiddling with the wording a bit. Having the Wikipedia advocate the TM organization's views, and even advocate it so openly, is something that can simply not be accepted at all. But what sense makes this discussion if all editors except me have a conflict of interest about the issue. --rtc 03:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course "The science section is not in any way assembling points and drawing an original conclusion." It is correct that it is not explicitly assembling points. It is also correct that the conclusion it draws implicitly is not original. It is the conclusion that the TM organization officially draws, here. I do not ask the research section to be erased. I ask for the conclusion to be made explicit, attributed to the TM organization and sourced with the above URL. This is certainly not asking for too much! --rtc 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't read it the same way you do, and don't see it as drawing a particular implicit conclusion. In my mind, because this section is just presenting facts and not drawing a conclusion, it leaves it open for the reader to draw his own conclusion. You've drawn a specific conclusion. But how do we know every reader would draw the same conclusion as you? I think an intelligent person could read this and draw a very different conclusion. In fact, in reading it I would conclude that the research is inconclusive. It suggests that the results vary regarding the medical research and that Transcendental Meditation may or may not be effective. It suggests that all the results related to cognitive function are due to the placebo effect. It cites a (non-refereed and poorly designed) study that says that Transcendental Meditation causes problems in some people. A person could draw a very different conclusion than you. In my mind, that's what makes this neutral: it presents the facts and leaves the reader to draw his own conclusion. TimidGuy 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the reader can draw various conclusions, he will prefer some conclusions over the others, depending on the way "just the facts" are described. The reader might still make a different decision if all major conclusions would be explicit and attributed to the their proponents. I think that neutrality is exactly the opposite of how you understand it: The conclusions should be presented and the reader should be left to choose some or none of them. Wikipedia articles must be written such that it is neutral given the average reader, not just the intelligent reader. The average reader will draw a biased conclusion that he would not have drawn if the possible conclusions were described and attributed. The intelligent reader might conclude that there are several possible interpretations, as you described. I, however, conclude that the article is under the firm control of people with a conflict of interest, that it is not neutral and that it needs to be changed. So that is the conclusion I drew on my own, and I think that it is a very valid conclusion. --rtc 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was not me who brought up the (nonsensical, I agree) argument with what the reader is allegedly thinking! I suppose I have to get some radical skeptics and throw them at this article to destroy this WP:OWNing by a tight-knit  group of people who all have a conflict of interest on the issue. --rtc 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: rtc, you're verging on a bad violation of policy- which anyway won't work.  Desist. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a violation of policy to commit a violation of policy to fight the massive violation of NPOV policy here? --rtc 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a violation of policy to violate policy.  Don't do it. –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key disagreement 

message: Hello Crowley's Aunt .... the German study was discussed several months ago and was found to be a poor reference and not usable since the study itself was not properly conducted. I'll see if I can find the archived material on that for you. I also noted that the links you provided on "studies" don't work and that the reference section seems to be  completely skewed. 
This article has also been criticized for its length so I will compress the "studies" information you added. Although there is no way of checking the links now as should be done, since they are not working, I will though leave the material in place pending a link check .(olive 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I just checked that study, and the effects are generalized for several meditation types so not really usable on a article specific to one form of meditation.... very nice working with you (olive 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German study 

message: :Hi Crowley's Aunt: This is material from an archived piece of information that indictates the problems with the study. This pretty much sums it up . I am not a scientist so cannot comment on much else but other editors may be able to. Thanks for your efforts on the article. This information was a  dialogue between John Knapp and Dr. Nelson and originally posted by user Sparaig who introduces the two comments from Dr. Nelson to John Knapp. Hope this helps to clarify  (olive 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the German study 

message: Hello rtc I apologize for not replying sooner. 
Rather than ignore your last post to me, I should mention that I responded to the best of my ability to what I understood your concerns to be. On rereading your post I wondered if much of the confusion comes from a different interpretation of words  - of defining certain words. I would like to try and explain what I mean by that.
 
*I believe we are using the word “conclusion” in different ways. As I understand your meaning, you believe the editor writing has a point of view and so adds material based on that. The material itself, then becomes the conclusion of that POV. However I do not mean conclusion in this way. For example, the sentence, Fire swept through Greece destroying villages, homes, livestock, olive groves, and killing  people, is relatively straightforward. However there is an implied point of view here, not from the information we read, but from a mind set we as human beings bring to this information. Most of us would assume this is very bad news, tragic in fact. There is nothing in the lines from the point of view of the“language” of the line, however, that indicates that point of view. This is a statement of fact without frills. But we as a race have a general point of view about loss of life, so most of us see this statement as negative. 
*I believe the studies on TM technique display the same kind of implied POV, that is, we as human beings might consider for example that high blood pressure is not a good thing for most people in fact it could kill you, so a study that shows that the condition can be helped implies that this study is a good thing. This kind of view is unavoidable because it belongs generally, to the race as a whole. The article contains both a so- called positive view, and so-called negative views each in proportion to the overall body of work on each side, as per Wikipedia guidelines, but these determinations are not the implied views we all as human beings have . An editor, has to exercise some judgment in the selection of the material and Wikipedia has developed numerous guidelines to direct this - reliable, verifiable and so forth. An editor however, can't make decisions based on implied views that come out of the generalized views of the whole race. All the editor can do , it seems to me is take two side of the research and show both, weighted in proportion to the amount of material in each area. As I said, here in this article, both are there weighted in amount according to the overall body of studies on either side. There are two levels of point of view here . One general and not controllable since this belongs to whole race in general, one specific related to the material itself.
*When I talk about the reader drawing a conclusion, I mean for example, that if a student comes to the lines about the fires in Greece, he or she sees the facts, that there is a fire and it is destroying property and people. If the student is writing a paper on the tragedy in Greece than he selects material from the encyclopedia and then draws it together to form a conclusion of his own based on these facts. If a conclusion is contained within the encyclopedia and the student uses that conclusion in his paper than the student’s conclusion is not his own, is not his own original research, not really his own paper. As an encyclopedia, as I understand it, we are allowed the facts but not the conclusions or the original research. The student or reader however is the one who draws conclusions and creates new information –original research. But again I want to say that certain information is implicitly positive or negative dependent on a worldview we as a race have. This is what I mean by “conclusion”, different from what you may mean.
*Rather than suggest that a few people control this article, check the archives, editors created this article over time many who definitely did not like TM and wanted to indicate that. That’s fine. The article developed with the input from all editors. One learns a lot from discussion and arguments. 
*To say that the editors “twiddled” with the words on this site would be very much a misunderstanding of what I, as one editor, did. One of my academic backgrounds is in English Literature and language. I am very aware, possibly because of that background of the impact a single word has. For example, if we insert the word “tragically” in the lines, Fire swept through Greece tragically destroying villages, homes, livestock, and olive groves, and killing many people, the line is no longer neutral. There is a point of view here drawn from the writer’s own viewpoint. As soon as you commented on the studies section, several editors I noticed, and I was one, went to look for this kind of small word (that has big implications). As an example, “benefit” had been included in one place. An editor changed that meaning - ladened word to “effect”. This changes the whole tone of the line. The material is now more neutral even though the change would seem to be small. These editors came in immediately to make these changes and did so without argument. I don't think we can underestimate the value of this detailed kind of editing(olive 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a lot of words but not a single argument against making the conclusions explicit and attributing them to a position, as mandated by WP:NPOV. But I understand that it would destroy the advertisement effect, and hence you won't do it, but continue to try to reply with so many words which say so little. --rtc 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe show what part of the policy explicitly requires this. I don't think your reading of this policy is in accord with that of most editors. Scientific research is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. It need not be attributed to a position. You haven't made your case. TimidGuy 11:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. There are a lot of words here. I was responding to what I believed to be an honest concern, based on what you seem to believe to be an implied point of view, in what appears to be  verifiable, neutral research studies, your insistence  that conclusions be part of an article, and your perceived view of the superficiality of micro-editing. Excluding the desire to include conclusions in an article, these no longer seem to be  concerns. Fair enough. Nowhere inWP:NPOV do I find  "making the conclusions explicit and attributing them to a position", nor should I as an editor have to present an argument "against" a guideline that does not come out of the Wikipedia guidelines, that if fact in terms of Wikipedia does not exist, nor should editors in my opinion be attempting to argue against Wikipedia guidelines, here, even if they do exist.  Published, peer-reviewed, scientific research is a reliable source.The act of researching and finding conclusions is the  primary source. The peer-review and  subsequent publication becomes the secondary source. This material is peer reviewed in reliable publications, and so is appropriate Wikipedia material. I can't see that your arguments stand. (olive 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The peer-review and  subsequent publication becomes the secondary source."—do you actually seriously believe this? How can anyone seriously distort the concepts of primary and secondary sources in such a ridiculous way? Please read secondary source! The part of the policy you are seeking is WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. In its terminology, the article is "discussing the facts on which a point of view is based", but it does not say "which competing opinions are based" on them, that is, it does not say anything about the overall interpretation of these facts. How can the "reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints" if they are not described? --rtc 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that that Wikipedia page on secondary sources says anything about scientific studies. There is a difference of opinion on whether they are primary or secondary. I've often seen Olive's point on the Talk pages of the guidelines and policies. Another view seen there is that they like outside this framework. But Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that they are a reliable source that can be cited. TimidGuy 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on key disagreement  

message: I have started a new thread just for ease. The last one was becoming unwieldy. These are only my personal views.
*Should not discuss on talk pages Wikipedia policy Guidelines -"consensus is a bad joke","WP:CON is mostly nuts".
*Have to best of ability tried to understand rtc's view of the research section, tried to explain my position, and have nothing more to comment on.
*Clarify that inclusion of studies are in fact peer-reviewed. 
*Clarify that positive research is balanced with negative research in proportion to amount of research in each area. No one says I have to like negative material or not, and incorrect to assume that an editor likes everything in an article. On the contrary. The material is there because that helps to provide a neutral stance taken by and created by the editors of the article. 
*Verifiability trumps truth..... yes.... I am not suggesting otherwise. I am discussing the point that if in discussion we find that Markovsky's points are not verifiable and misrepresent the facts, do we need to include  th material since the article already has good verifiable non- positive research. I am also not attempting to keep this out of the article, I am discussing it. As a point,in the same article we are citing  21 million dollars worth of funding from NIH. How can that in any logical way be construed as TM organization funding.  
*Crowley's Aunt makes some good, constructive points on how to proceed as does TG -for example reread the papers and find a more reliable source.At that point in my view we can decide if we need the material as per WP:Weight. 
*TG has provided excellent information and points, and does so in a calm and friendly way despite less than civil comments from another editor.  This kind of personal judgment, is not appropriate in light of Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY which includes "we have every right to demand civility ".   This is a personal attack against an editor and would suggest another form  reply when commenting on these pages.(olive 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Issues 

message: The final section of this article contains material on TM Independent and Natural Stress Relief. This makes either the material in the article or the link recently added redundant.We are trying to keep the article as trim as possible .... and its really long... so either of these could be deleted but the article doesn't need both.Editors might want to discuss here instead of engage in an edit war. (olive 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Olive. Good point. This sort of link spam is disallowed. Wikipedia Admin ElC, who reverted it twice, has the power to block this IP if the person continues. TimidGuy 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you TG-completely unfamiliar with link spam  until now. (olive 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read over WP:EL and Wikipedia:Spam for more info.  Dreadstar † 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes did that ... thanks(olive 21:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on link deletion and reverts... mantra technique  

message: My understanding of Maharishi's terms for states of consciousness is that although glorified Cosmic Consciousness describes God consciousness , the term Maharishi uses to name the state as opposed to describing it is  God Consciousness(olive 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go with what the source says. Haven't checked to see what that is. TimidGuy 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did check on this but could check with another source. Apparently GC is used interchangeably with GCC . I'll see if I can find more info.and possibly an official statement about these terms.(olive 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry TG when you said source I thought you meant some member of the organization who could verify this one way or the other. However as you noted the source or reference cited in the article should indicate which term to use.The source uses the term or  state as "God Consciousness" so we should stay with that .(olive 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on GC and glorified CC 

message: Hi David. 
Yes, we are all concerned about making the article neutral. You might check the archives should you decide you want to see what editors are responsible for what. 
*In actual fact, the editor who stressed the need to move information on the practical aspects of MVS, of which I’m sure you know Sthapatya Veda is one, to a stub on the topic was User:Tanaats, The stub was then developed to include a wide range of material. Placing this material on the TM page would have created an enormously long article. Tannats is not a TM supporter.  He has made that very clear.
* During mediation, the mediating editor advised that the article was still too long, despite the move previously, of material to a MVS site/article. How can we turn around and start to put MVS material back into the article as you suggest.
*I want to make it clear that no one so far is arguing about your right to include well-sourced material in the appropriate place. 
*Editors with numerous backgrounds, and divergent views on TM decided on the article’s actual organization. What you see is the result of months of those discussions.
*The article is about the TM technique, and I, and I believe, other editors have been involved in the attempting to move whatever does not comply with this organizational format.
*Assuming that TM supporters somehow created the article would be hugely incorrect, and as well does not credit all of the non-TM editors for their considerable efforts on this article.
*With the input of User: Crowley’s Aunt, I am again going over the article “with a fine toothed comb” attempting to locate any non-neutral material, and or material that is not Wikipedia compliant, such as inappropriate links, non-neutral words and so on.
*I can’t argue in any way about, nor to my understanding is it appropriate to assume the mind set of any editor, mediator or of Maharishi himself. My understanding is that the article is for actual discussion of the article, and should not become personal. You can of course include well-sourced material of this nature if it is relevant to any of the sections on the TM page or on any other pages.
*I wanted note again that this article has been so contentious that the only way of dealing with the diverse views and discussions is to apply in a stringent manner Wikipedia standards for policies and guidelines. Anything that does not comply can be discussed.
*I wanted to mention Wikipedia:  
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.
These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.
 
(olive 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delineting TM as a technique, and other programs 

message: Can anyone please take a look at the Vedic meditation article?
It looks like it's related to TM, but it reads like an advert for a particular TM group, or maybe a splinter TM group.
There aren't any links to it from other articles. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks. I hadn't known about it. And after I read the description, it seemed to me that it was different from Transcendental Meditation. Since no sources are given in the article, I deleted the part that said that Vedic meditation is also sometimes called Transcendental Meditation. It does seem like it's basically an ad. Looks like someone has just removed the links to commercial sites. TimidGuy 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic meditation 

message: Agreed!.That first paragraph has been a thorn in my side for awhile. As I read it over again today, I thought .... Why not dump it? .... doesn't serve any purpose really.... just hums and haws around the topic .... why not just jump right into the topic in the next paragraph. Thoughts?(olive 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. TimidGuy 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Rracecarr 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-weaseling cult issues