Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 5

message: Someone have repeatedly removed citations given for  facutal statements in i.a. the article's first para. These are now re-introduced with the thope that the vandal in question instead of removing citations, and requests for such, instead find a source to support whatever pov they indulge in today.
I have already explained to you why I am doing this, I do not feel the need to repeat myself. Please sign your comments, and put new comments at the bottom of the talk page. Sethie 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  looking for facts 

message: Quote the RfC:
The issue is how to apply the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or scientific affirmations about the transcendental meditation technique, including assertions on the scientific methods used.  See also Rfc in Religion and philosophy  19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I say we delete it, it is currently a one line stub, and all the info in it is contained in the TM article Maybe in the future someone who will have more info about it will arrive.
Sethie 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Spiritual Gen Movement 

message: This article does not discuss TM in any objective manner. It is a bulletin board for TM critics. The way forward, it would seem, is the strip down the article to explaining TM per se and create a new article perhaps called "General Critique of TM and its Founder" to host that, perhaps with link from an undisputed article about TM user:PeterKlutz
Before you go and re-write an entire article, please study and learn about:
~ HOW TO SIGN YOUR POSTS! 
~ Wikipedia etiquite for restructuring a talk page (I will undo the damage you did)
~ What a "POV Fork" is- because that is what you are suggesting. 
There is a much simpler solution- include information about TM in the article so it is more balanced!
Sethie 13:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a criticisms page is the way to go.  I think this page needs some cleaning up in the criticisms, ie removing some of the duplications and then just get more useful information on TM. Obhaso 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: Sethi, given the that TM is trademarked with intial uppercase letters, Transcendental Meditation is the more appropriate venue for a TM article than Transcendental meditation. Please refrain from further vandalism and let this version stand. 
Rosoft, I don't know who you are, but if you're not part of the fundamentalist christians and Sai Baba fans that are trying to stop this very simple thing from being realized (a short to the point article about TM), perhaps you'll be so kind as to support common sense here. 
user:Peterklutz
For the record, a new article for TM critique already exists [here]
user:Peterklutz
Well, you still have not learned how to do a signature, but at least you are signing with the same account you are postting with. 
I agree with you, capital case TM is how it should be listed. However, the way you are going about it is incorrect. We'll need an admin to do it, I'll get one.
Are you willing or able to share why you won't use the regular signature method? Sethie 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: About kneeling during Puja: What kind of source am I supposed to provide? I am an ex-TM Teacher , made Teacher in 1977 along with 200 others. I can also make a web-page like the other ex's and say its a source. Every source is also just a testimony of ex-teachers just like mine -- User:Hanumandas
That is a great question and goes to the root of wikipedia. See wp:v. We have tried to use sources other then EX TM teachers as much as possible, because they are not very credible! :) Most of the sources are not, we only used them as a last resort.
If you make a REALLY nice page that looks REALLY proffesional, maybe myself and other editors will feel comfortable using it. Please notice for the kneeling source, it is a published article! Sethie 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to go through such trouble, even though I am quite capable to do nice Webpages; as I said, I am only an ex-TMer and am not trying to sell anything here. But if you really take unreliable sources, like the Ex-TM webpages, and it is pointed out that some information, as said from an unreliable source, is inaccurate, it would only be justified to leave it off. That this is not valit anymore since 30 years was in fact an edit-comment, and I was not editing something in, but was editing an unreliable source out. So there is no absolute need for a source, as I am not making a new statement. -- mizar  14:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a sourced claim. You don't, you don't count as a source. I don't count as a source. I was initiated into TM, and spent time at MIU, but you don't see any of my comments in there, or me making edits based on what I saw. Wiki doesn't work that way. Sethie 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kneeling

message: I really like most of your edits, however in each batch, about a third of them where just blatant POV removals, of well sourced facts. I was willing to go through and re-enter the POV removals once... but not twice. 
Part of it is that despite the request on the talk page, you are making no comments about your edits. If you continue along those lines, your edits will just be reverted, the good along with the ugly. Sethie 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ) No problem, I have been on fire many times myself! Sethie 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by 71.246

message: I read the TM book (is there only one TM book?) like 10 years back when I was interested in normal meditation, and I seem to recall that the point of having "teaching centers" was mainly because they wanted the center to exude waves of peace and happiness that would make the population calmer and happier.  The "calculation" was that due to the radius or some such, it would require one person per million in the population, located in the right spot.  When I saw the Natural Law Party emerge a while back, this made me think they were one and the same or at least related.  Seems like interesting and pertinent info for the article.  I don't have time to source it right now, but perhaps someone else also knows about this. Jkeiser 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spiritual Regeneration Movement

message: As I have shared numerous times, the purpose of the first paragraph is to introduce the article. There is no need to cite a refference- the rest of the article does that, unless you are POV pushing.
Your repeated replacements of it ARE VANDALISM, since you are not willing to discuss this on the talk page. Please, let's dialogue about it here. 
Please, respond to why I believe it does not belong there. Sethie 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: This is what a whois search yields for the site behind-the-tm-facade.org, given as source by Seth:
Domain ID   D105540833-LROR
Domain Name  BEHIND-THE-TM-FACADE.ORG
Created On  08-Jan-2005 18:21:49 UTC
Last Updated On  10-Mar-2005 03:51:16 UTC
Expiration Date  08-Jan-2010 18:21:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar  Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status  CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID  38923095-NSI
Registrant Name  Unstress4less c/o
Registrant Organization  Unstress4less c/o
Registrant Street1  9116 EG
Registrant City  EG
Registrant State/Province  CA
Registrant Postal Code  95624
Registrant Country  US
Registrant Phone  +1.916
Registrant Email  no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Admin ID  38923095-NSI
Admin Name  Unstress4less c/o
Admin Organization  Unstress4less c/o
Admin Street1  9116 EG
Admin City  EG
Admin State/Province  CA
Admin Postal Code  95624
Admin Country  US
Admin Phone  +1.916
Admin Email  no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Tech ID  38923095-NSI
Tech Name  Unstress4less c/o
Tech Organization  Unstress4less c/o
Tech Street1  9116 EG
Tech City  EG
Tech State/Province  CA
Tech Postal Code  95624
Tech Country  US
Tech Phone  +1.916
Tech Email  no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Name Server  NS2.ELKGROVE.NET
NS3.ELKGROVE.NET
When googling Unstress4less you find:
   http://www.unstress4less.org/
... a site which i.a. offers penis enlargement.
If Seth is serious about improving this article - find a better source or drop the allegation.
if you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you learn how to sign your name... and if you are in fact PeterKlutz, etc., I suggest you choose ONE account and stick with it.
I am not deeply well-versed in Web registration etiquette/procedure/etc. please state your complaint in common sense easy-to-understand English. Sethie 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with critical sources 

message: thinks to everyone who is participated in helping to slow down the vandalism of this page.  The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page is also being messed around with by an anonymous user who swaps IPS as well.
I appreciate anyone and everyone's help in dealing with the situation,I have carpal tunnel syndrome, so every keystroke really messes with my arms and wrists.  I am using voice recognition software, but a lot of typing is still required. thanks again Sethie 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maharishi page

message: I say we remove the cleanup tag from the TM article page... 3 tags feels a bit silly to me, and it doesn't strike me as a messy article, just incomplete, and given the TM theory/history to controversy ratio not quite neutral yetSethie 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Sfacets 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tags

message: This has already been explained (and duly ignored) but the article as it is currently written suffers from two serious errors that fly in the face of wikipedia policy. The first is the fact that wikipedia policy does not approve anti-articles, i.e. articles dedicated to criticizing something. The second is the lack of sources to substantiate this criticism.
As the article now stands two thirds of the text is dedicated to whining about TM - in short, it is not about the subject of TM, but has become a bullting board for whiners.
The sources used when backing up this criticism boil down accordingly:
(1) three religiously driven sites (two Christian and one Jewish)
(2) three self-promoting indivudals, two of which call themselves authors
(3) a former-Moon Cult member who these days are attacking anything smelling of cult
(4) a single medical journalist which for some reason has it in for TM
(5) part of this list is the so-called behind-the-TM-facade.org site, which is registered anonymously and which also appers to run a number sex-sites.
As far as the sources used by these few sites, one of the apparenly stronger ones is the 
behind-the-TM-facade.org's: Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000, 
Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p.  
Here's an abstract for the piece of "science" quoted in behind-the-TM-facade.org (Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000):
"This article reviews 75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, based on a Medline and Psychlit search from 1989 until June 1999 and earlier relevant papers. It summarises definitions of meditation, psychological and physiological changes, and 
side-effects encountered in the meditator. The review focuses on the comparison between meditation and psychotherapy at a practical and theoretical level. Finally, it reviews the scientific evidence for specific applications of meditation in clinical practice."
I.e. it's a an anecdotal review totally biased in its selection of material and which also includes other types of meditation.
A breadown of the sources found:
SourceQuotedSource description
Andrew SKolnick6 timesmedical journalist
www.rickross.com5 timesDefender of Judaism
behind-the-tm-facade.org4 timesanonymous site i.a. also appears to offer penis enlargement services
www.paulmason.info2 timesself-promoting writer
skepdic.com1 timeself-promoting writer
minet.org1 timeowned by a guy reportedly called Michael Doughney and which runs a number of sites devoted to attacking others. When registereing peta.org and then using it for "People Eating Tasty Animals", he was successfully sued by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and later convicted in a federal court
www.csj.org1 timeregistered by American Family Foundation - a Christian fundamentalist that also sells material critical of Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code
www.freedomofmind.com1 timeSteven Alan Hassan says he is a former member of the Moon cult
www.greatcom.com1 timeChristian hard-core
I hope this will inspire contributors to rethink the article's current form - followed by acting on this.
Peterklutz
Pick one source, one issue and we can focus on that, one thing at a time. Sethie 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article and WIkipedia rules 

message: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Bishonen | talk 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your edits to [[Talk:Transcendental Meditation]] and [[User talk:Bishonen]]

message: I've relocated the "Behind the Facade" link to the "References" section because I don't think a Wiki introduction should be using a link from (quote) "unknown critics" in an intro. I have also removed the ref. to "unknown critics" because it looks really gauche, especially for an intro. Instead, I've altered the text a little to refer to the other criticisms from apparently more valid sources which are encountered further into the article. 
Edit: I decided to move the second link in the intro to the References section too, because, as a link to an unofficial TM site, its high profile in the article smacks of promotion. Also I thought it was only fair to move this pro-TM link as I had already moved the anti-TM one.  Gatoclass 03:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocation of leading link

message: I am at loss here, (1) on the discussion page I see a new source reg TM-related research - I check the article, finds it not there, I check the source - it's geuine. I  put it into the article. (2) I clarify and expand the section on TM mantras, which, truth be told, the previous author(s), does not seem to have a too deep understanding of.
The result?
I receive a "final warning" from Sfacets that my enxt attempt to improve the article will result in myself in being banned from editing wikipedia articles for ever.
Who is this guy? God? An admin? How should his threat be understood - is it a proper response? A sinister attempt to scare other editors away from wikipedia? Is Sfacets the same person as Paul Mason - the author that uses the TM article to promote his own book? 
If a real admin happens to read this, feel free to comment (or do something about this Sfacets constant threats).
Thank you,
Peterklutz
Found the response below on [SFacets talk page...] 
Peterklutz
Peter, I think one thing that bothers people is that you continue to use a non-standard way of signing your work. This is what people who are attempting to disrupt the internet process do (AKA "trolling" when its done in a Usenet newsgroup). In order to be seen as "one of the guys," it would be far better to use Wikipedia's  "four tilde" method of signing your contribution. That is, type "~" 4 times in a row without spaces at the end of your contribution. That will automatically sign your paragraph with your name, user-page link, and time of your edit and make people less likely to think you're trying something fishy. Sparaig 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued threats of being blocked for vandalsim by Sfacets 

message: His edits appear to be a content dispute, and may involve personal attacks or 3RR violations; but they don't meet the project-wide definition of vandalism.  (Vandalism includes things like blanking pages or writing "poop" in the middle of an article).  You might try reporting him on WP:AN3 or WP:PAIN instead of WP:ANI.  --EngineerScotty 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong place to report Peterklutz 

message: A closer look the "Criticisms and controversies" section makes it evident that it is best described as a wailing wall. 
(1) statements made in the TM and religion subsection are incorrect and at best confirm  a distorted second-hand understanding.
(2) the Sexism and the TM organization - simply ridiculous in content and tone.
(3) Fees and finances 1st sentence 2nd para: evidently just some whiners highly personal pov
(4) Why the persistent use of citation marks around certain terms, like "sidhas?" What's wrong with TM-Sidhi practitioners? What is the impression author's using citation marks wishes to create with readers?
(5) These requests are sometimes made during rounding courses, when critics claim the course participant may be particularly susceptible to suggestion What is this but pure and simple speculation. When is a good time the approach people for fundraising: when they're  all gathered at the same location or dispersed all over a country? 
This is a no-brainer and certainly nothing exclusive to TM.
(6) ..finances of the TM organization have been kept secret What's the deal here? Is keeping financial records to one self not a standard procedure? Is there a crime involved? Then say so. As this now stands it just sounds like some editor's personal unhappiness with ignorance of affairs they don't have any legal right to know in the first place.
(7) A potentially interesting bit of gossip as the murder subsection might be for some, how informative is it learn what a journalist at the British left-wing tabloid feels about this? Really?
Adolescent whining does not become truer just because it is attributed to some journalist who just might have had another angle (I've read the Guardian article and find the description of it in the TM article quite off the mark).
Here's a suggestion for how to finally get the TM article into such a shape that it is not viewed as a failure for wikipedia: Create a new article about the TM Movement and move bulk of the criticism section there - the bulk of the complaints has to do with the movement.
Peterklutz 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Peter, the complaint against your edit isn't that it's wrong about TM teachings (although where health benefits are concerned, there are such complaints), at least not IMO, or over-detailed.  You give valuable and interesting information. The problem is that you don't give it in a neutral or encyclopedic way. You write what TM teaches; we're supposed to write about what TM teaches. I think you have simply gotten off on the wrong foot with this article, raising  resentment and suspicion by editing from a variety of IPs and usernames, for instance, and I presume you in turn feel beleaguered because you're outnumbered. But if you try to rewrite your material in an NPOV way, I think (hope) that it would be discussed and perhaps modified, but not deleted out of hand by other editors. 
Example: to say that "a TM-mantra is a carefully choosen vehicle that effortlessly takes the mind and being of a TM-practitioner into resonance with key Laws of Nature guiding the Universe - ultimately taking him or her to the source of all the laws of nature - Pure Being or Transcendental Consciousness" is to claim that this is how it is, these are facts. Honestly, can you imagine your sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia is not the place for such claims. Something like this might work: "TM teaches that a mantra is a carefully choosen vehicle that takes the mind and being of a practitioner into resonance with key laws of nature guiding the universe, and that it will ultimately take him or her to a state seen as the source of all the laws of nature—Pure Being or Transcendental Consciousness." Please take a shot at rewriting your material in similar neutral form before reinsertiing it. Be sure to indicate in the edit summary that you're offering a compromise version, because I'm afraid some editors may have gotten into the habit of automatically reverting you (a very bad thing, but somewhat understandable considering that it does tend to always be the same edit). Incidentally please be careful with the capitals, they can add a whole layer of POV— for instance when using a capitalised He to refer to Maharishi. That's not appropriate here; it's a wiki article, not a TM website. Please take a look at the article God; God is plain "he" there, because that article isn't a Christian/Muslim/etc website, either. Good luck, I hope work on this article can become collegial in a way that includes everybody. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a capitalized "He" to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi isn't standard within the TM organization. In fact, using a capitalized "He" to refer to MMY's teacher, almost universally recognized  as a Hindu "saint" in India, isn't standard within the TMO either. Sparaig 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peterklutz, please  put your material in NPOV form

message: Forgot to add them here as I went, sorry.
Firstly, I changed the States of Consciousness section to refer to the links to Charles "Skip" Alexander's essay about them. While somewhat out-of-date from a purely research perspective, they're still accurate in the purely theoretical POV as originally presented by MMY. I'll try to add something to a standalone page later.
Secondly, I changed the wording of a few things to more accurately reflect the theoretical presentation of the TMO. E.G., there's no "goal" during TM practice since that introduces effort and control, and changed the wording from [roughly] "the TM program offers something," to "the organization that teaches TM offers something," since TM is a stand-alone technique and can't "offer" something. Just being nitpicky.Sparaig 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes 

message: Again I've looked into the sources used by some editors and have no choice but to request a source for the 2003 Middle European Study.
I've searched Springer Verlag's site and - yes - they do have articles about TM (over twenty) but they are all from different years and can only be considered supportive of TM. If the "2003" source is not presented within a reasonable time-frame, the wikipedian thing is to drop the allegation in toto.
If any Christian or Jewish Fundamentalist - or disgrunted ex-TM-teacher - can't seem to find their favorite anti-TM site, feel free to list them in the external links section.
Peterklutz 15:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new encyclopedic version of the Critiscism & Controversies section 

message: Looks like the editor of the last changes might want to think about making the chars used human readable. Hopes this is of any help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTML_decimal_character_references
Peterklutz 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of Consciousness