Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 7

message: I've practiced TM twice a day for the last 12 years and there's no question that it's valuable and beneficial in many ways; I've also studied Indian philosophy in depth and visited India twice. By any estimate Maharishi's scholarship is superb and his commentaries, insights and translations from Sanskrit very impressive indeed.
However Maharishi and TM are just examples among many gurus and techniques exported from India and certainly the movement doesn't have exclusive claim to spiritual truth and personal development. Many thinkers and Indian philosophers accept the basic authority of the Vedas, among the most profound writings in humanity's possession, and then argue over details and interpretations. This is the sensible way to look at TM- a useful addition to the world's great spiritual backcloth that is the Indian tradition.
:Oh, in that case I agree we should entirely remove anything negative from the TM article, since an anonymous person says there's "no question" that TM is valuable and beneficial in many ways and that "by any estimate," Mahesh Yogi's scholarship is superb, and obviously beyond question or criticism. 
:Anonymous writer, Wiki talk pages are NOT public bulletin boards for people to talk about their views of the world. They are places for EDITORS to discuss how to better edit the article. You'd be much better off discussing your life and your views on alt.meditation.transcendental. Thanks for understanding. Askolnick 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from a TM practitioner 

message: As a newcomer to this article, I am amazed it has been allowed to get to this state:
Surely the fact that the claims on the founders website quickly prove to be lies (I particularly loved the graphs of various cognative performance improvments which were basically meaningless, and the claim of 100s of scientific studies which, if properly examined, quickly dissappear!), is enough that wikipedia should dismiss the whole concept as "Scientology for gullible meditation-addicts". 128.86.161.242 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmm 

message: What i heard  from other TM practioners that the mantra used in TM are basic mantras used in 
ancient vedic books.I dont think repetition of mantra is going to hamper anyones mental health.
The thing for sure is that u must not compell and do meditation like a exercise .It will come naturally.It is a mental state without much tensions.Even we sit idle for quite some time we feel pleasantness Repetition of Mantra makes u stay focussed without any much efforts .
As per my opinion TM Meditation practice is simple and i have found lot of people benifited from it.Even i felt bit enregised for around 14 hours in my programming proffession.
Really iam not a supported of TM group but i wish to convey my words and experiences about TM.
I have also experienced that iam bit focussed while playing cricket after practising TM.This is true.
even iam not a regular practioned of TM.
Some of the rules of meditation
1.Deep sleep and enough sleep is a must and it is better than mediattion.
2.Dont compell urself to sit at Meditation.It will occur naturally like sometimes u may think of 
  going for a long pleasant walk.
3.Primary things--> rest for 5 mins before and after medittaion
4.Dont do meditation when stomach is loaded or after exercise.
Really meditation has lot of good effects if practised properly.There are lot of ways of meditation .
I practised two and found myself comfortable with TM. 
:Hi, 213.42.2.XX. It would be great if you'd create an account and sign your posts, because you keep coming in from different IPs and it's hard to know who's talking. Please note that you can sign posts on this page, even without having an account, by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. When you save, that transforms to your IP, or your account name if you have one, plus a timestamp. But the main thing I wanted to tell you is that this is a page for discussing the article — not the subject transcendental meditation, your experiences of it, etc. It's only for discussing, and hopefully reaching some agreement on, how to make Transcendental Meditation better. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Also, when you edit the TM or any other Wiki article, please be more careful and always check the accuracy of what you add. The Archives of Internal Medicine (a montly specialty journal) is not the prestigious weekly Journal of the American Medical Association. And please try to make all changes consistent with Wiki style (including all footnotes, references, etc). Please see how I edited your additions. Thanks.Askolnick 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's a shared proxy. Predictably, it's got a mix of good and bad edits, and apparently when you block it, you take out the entire United Arab Emirates. See in the block log how Nandesuka blocks it for a month in April, then unblocks four days later when he realizes the collateral damage is unacceptable? The person who used it to post here doesn't sound like a vandal to me. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: With all their wealth from oil, I would think they could afford more than one IP address!Askolnick 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantras will they affect human nature 

message: I'm sure the rest of the wiki community appreciates your tireless efforts to discredit the postings of Peter. I mean, they can't possibly figure where he's coming from on their own... Sparaig 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand why you don't want newcomers to know that TMer Peterklutz was permanently blocked from contributing to Wikipedia because of his persistent disruptive conduct (in fact, he continues to waste the time of two administrators, who have to keep reverting his attacks). However, newcomers need some help navigating through this mind-bogglingly long talk page. You obviously resent my giving them this help. You should bear in mind that I wouldn't need to inform newcomers that TMer Peterklutz is blocked for persistently disruptive conduct if he had not been persistently disruptive. As I told TM monk and publicist Dean Drazin 15 years ago, I'm only the postman delivering people's kharma. Askolnick 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think that anyone but you cares at this point? His contributions are all on the TALK page now, where they will pass into archived form quite shortly. Sparaig 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, you care enough, or else you wouldn't have added a new subsection to this talk page to comment on this. Askolnick 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Sparaig. You're incorrect that Peter's contributions are all on his, or any, talkpage. He's posted several times to Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi today, from , and edit warred to keep in a contribution of such barefaced POV (plus incidentally what looks like deliberately bad grammar changes) that he has to be aware that it'll never be kept in the article. I don't see any possible purpose other than to make work for admins, or to discredit TM. Or both. And he went right on after I held off blocking today in order to tell him he was only embarrassing his own side. Looks to me like Askolnick is the wrong person to blame for Peter making TMers look bad.  Compare my note here. Are you sure he is a bona fide TMer?  Bishonen | talk 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the "note to newbies" stuff that andrew put on THIS page to comment about Peter's comments on THIS page.  He's removed them since. And Andrew, I was just being sarcastic. Peter obviously has problems that he deals with by making TM and MMY his religion in the strictest sense of the word. I think most people can figure that out without your commentary on his problems. Sparaig 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? I was referring to your mistaken claim that Peter's edits were now all on a [whichever] talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks andrew 

message: All right, I think archiving round about now might be a good idea. I'm archiving all threads more than three days old in the usual way, same as archives 1-3, shutting my eyes firmly to the novelty of creating archive 4 and 5 by pointing to particular history revisions.  Bishonen | talk 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Bishonen or anyone else who can figure out what's wrong, please take a look at the footnote section of the TM article. I tried to fix the last footnote in the list, but in the editing mode, none of the footnotes are displayed. Askolnick 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that what you had in mind for the footnote? Dreadlocke 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote section problem

message: It seems a tad biased to cite the same court ruling in 2 sections: learning TM and TM controversy. Sparaig 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a lengthy article, about an organization with a thousand tm-entacles throughout the world, some repetition of information is obviously necessary - and citing sources is a Wiki necessity!
OK, let me contrive ways to include the phrase "founder of the award winning K-12 school in Iowa" in several places... Sparaig 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's contrived, that would be spamming and will probably be removed.Askolnick 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  double-citing? 

message: As an aside, Dr. Coplin says MMY was born in 1912, so now we have a THIRD date.
This is from this guy's PhD dissertation in Sociology.
 Text and Context in the Communication of a Social Movement's Charisma, Ideology, and Consciousness:TM for India and the West
Introduction
SRM Origins
Socio-Historical Context for SRM's Emergence
SRM's Emergence
Notes for Chapter 2
SRM as Cultural Revitalization
Sparaig 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting reference on history of Maharishi and TM organization 

message: An anonymous user has tried to sanitize this article by removing all material concerning allegations of Maharishi's sexual misconduct, which was well-documented. I therefore replaced it.  (He/she had even removed the part about the most famous of all of Maharishi's past and present followers - the Beatles!). For the record, here is the rule he/she claimed justified his/her deletion:
:"Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."
Because the information he/she removed was well-sourced, that deletion was improper and needed to be restored.Askolnick 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanitizing Maharishi's biography

message: Crossposting. Sorry guys, I wasn't watching very closely. I have now blocked Peterklutz's entire IP range for a month to give you a bit of peace. I'm hoping it won't cause a lot of collateral damage to innocent anons. And if he starts riding the open proxies again, I suppose I'll semiprotect Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Transcendental meditation if you give me a shout. Mind you, MMY is such a mess anyway... anybody feel like cleaning it up a bit? Bishonen | talk 02:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peterklutz range-blocked

message: The Maharishi University of Management which is invoked as a source for the early 1970s research at UCLA and Harvard in the section "Procedures and Theory" is a really bad source in such a context. (By contrast, it might well be a good source for, say, TM teachings and doctrine.) If you click on the link to the MUM website, it turns out to refer in turn, vaguely, to publication "from 1970 to 1972 in the respected journals Science, American Journal of Physiology, and Scientific American." Bah. What we need for the TM article are direct references to those published studies in those (indeed) respected journals. If those references exist somewhere on the MUM site, I haven't found them. I request that somebody takes the time to look up the 1970 to 1972 issues of the original journals and produces real references. The dream would be web versions of the articles in question, of course. If this is not done within a reasonable space of time, say four weeks from today, I'm going to remove the whole thing as unsourced. Talking about Harvard and Scientific American, while actually only having access to MUM's selected and rephrased version of what's in them just doesn't fly.  Bishonen | talk 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think our readers are supposed to take such things on trust, I don't know what to tell you. It's nice that you were able to locate that information easily when challenged; I'm a bit surprised you didn't try before. Why put it on the talkpage, though?  yourself. And please review WP:CIVIL and take a shot at using some other tone than a sneer. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, sorry. And I didn't notice the non-citation, so I never put it in. If you haven't, I will. Sparaig 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor sourcing: I may remove these claims

message: I don't think Maharishi has ever said he "developed" Transcendental Medtiation. He always seems to credit Guru Dev and the Vedic tradition. So I changed it to "introduced," which is more commonly used. TimidGuy 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that's what the article should say. Neither "refining the meditation technique" or "developing a tearcher training process" means the same as "developing the meditation technique." Askolnick 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I reverted. "First introduced" is redudant. Introduction means makes a first appearanced. Unless you're talking about "introducing" a person to someone, there can only be one "introduction" of something. Askolnick 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even that would be erroneous by MMY's own statements. He claims that he *revived* the technique and that it originally was part of all the world's major religious and spiritual traditions but that its essential simplicity has gotten lost over time as the technique was passed from one generation to the next--a spiritual equivalent of the "telephone game" that people play. Sparaig 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maharishi "Developed" the Technique 

message: The Guideline on Words to avoid says that the word "claim" shouldn't be used because "it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness." I'd like to change the lead to remove this word, and thereby foster a more neutral point of view. As I have time, I may change other instances in this article. I hope everyone will agree with this.TimidGuy 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the word "claim" 

message: Apologies. I should have included an item on the Talk page about the change of "techniques" to "technique." My thinking was that Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program are different tecnhiques. The majority of people who learn Transcendental Meditation don't also learn the TM-Sidhi program. Maybe we should consider focusing on Transcendental Mediation in this entry, and then have a separate entry for the TM-Sidhi program. And thanks for removing the redundancy in my earlier edit. I thought of that right after I posted it.TimidGuy 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best to leave it plural in the introduction because it's the only accurate way to describe the movement's crackpot claims of having scientifically proven that they've discovered the certain and sure way to create peace, prosperity, and heaven on earth. They claim to be able to do by practicing their "yogic flying" technique, not just the introductory TM technique. And they're hawking other meditation techniques to the suckers, claiming that they too will give them health, peace, and prosperity, while emptying their pockets.Askolnick 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I calls'em as I sees'em. However, those words were not directed in any way at you. I've been watching the Mahesh Yogi and his merry band of followers now for nearly a quarter century. And that's how I sees'em. That's not only how I sees'em, it's how I've described them in a number of published articles, including an investigative news and perspective report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What's more, I'm in rather good company. Many prominent scientists, educators, journalists, and others have strongly criticized Mahesh Yogi and his organization for hoodwinking so many people. I wasn't aware that you're posting here for the first time. Now that I am, welcome. Askolnick 17:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic of entry 

message: I see that David Spector added a new section, which was discussed during July. Since this material doesn't reference a reputable source would it be considered "original research" and therefore disallowed? Thanks. TimidGuy 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does cite two sources, which are primary sources for most of those opinions. This section needs some editing. And he should provide a link to the web site for MMY's broadcasts. But I don't have the time right now to look at it more closely.  In addition, the information he added is pretty much common knowledge among people familiar with the TM movement. Do you see a problem with any of the statements? Askolnick 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: David Spector, IIRC, is one of the teachers who has broken away. It is his website that he gives reference to... Sparaig 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Breaking Away" section 

message: I've been making some changes to the research section, primarily replacing a couple of references to reports that appear to have been largely written from TM press releases rather than the actual studies. I've replaced them with links to the abstracts of the published studies, which more accurately describe the research. For example, the Forbes article exaggerates the study's findings: "Transcendental meditation (TM) reduces hypertension and cuts down on the need for blood pressure-lowering medications." The researcher's published conclusion is much more careful and cautious: TM "may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension in African Americans." Such a mistatement can cause a great deal of harm by convincing people with life-threatening hypertension that they should meditate instead of medicate. Even worse, the last statement about published research (re effect on pain) was not only inaccurate and misleading, it didn't even identify the reference! 
This section concerns published research, not exaggerations of research findings published in lay media. So I think it should stick to describing the actual research, rather than how it is being hyped.Askolnick 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good pont. The research can stand on its own. TimidGuy 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing section on research 

message: I would like to discuss the last sentence of the lead paragraph, "Many critics consider the TM movement a religious cult."
Askolnick insists that this sentence be kept in because it is well-substantiated and "noteworthy". I'd like to clarify with some questions, because I think clarification would serve any reader of this entry.
1) Who is the 'cult'? Is it Donovan, or David Lynch, or my sister practicing TM in Boston? Is it the athletes who have practiced TM through the years, or the rabbis, or the politicians? Just who are we talking about here?
2) Who are these critics - could you list them? Who commissioned a report for the French government on cults and what does it actually say? 
3) Could you define 'cult' for me? Definitions range from "collective veneration" to "system of religious worship and ritual" to "transient fad" to "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal" to "groups that have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice" "followers under the guidance of a charismatic leader" and so on. The dictionary definitions vary widely. Is a cult just what someone thinks it is, or are there objective criteria for it as it's used in Wikipedia and this entry? If so, what are those criteria?
Thanks for attention to this.
:Purple Iris, you begin this discussion by quoting the sentence and citing my argument that I think the statement is well-documented and noteworthy. You then ask questions to "clarify" (I haven't a clue what). However, most of your questions do not address either the sentence's noteworthiness or documentation. They address the meaning of the word "cult." What you or I think the meaning of cult is is not relevant. So I don't understand why you are asking me to define cult. The CSICOP article does not define cult, although it does provide a link to the Wikipedia article cult. If you want to dispute the definition there, this page is not the right place. As for your request that I list the critics who consider TM a cult, I have not the time nor desire to compile an exhaustive list. The "Cult-like" section in the TM article provides more than enough examples to justify the statement that many critics consider TM a cult. If you want to know what the report on cults for the French government says, you can read it for yourself. The link is there to an English translation.
:But let's cut to the chase. Your many words above appear to be dancing around something unsaid. Do you mean to say that the sentence "Many critics consider the TM movement a religious cult," is false? Or that it is not well-documented? If you are, then you're wasting your time talking about the meaning of cult. What you think or I think "cult" means will not change the fact that many critics say TM is one. Askolnick 05:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TM Considered to be a Cult 

message: I forgot to sign my name above. 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TM Considered to be a cult 

message: I added some detail about the demolition on campus. It had a sort of odd ant-Christian emphasis. And removed the word "however" according to the guidelines on words to avoid. TimidGuy 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sthapatya Veda section 

message: In the section TM-Sidhi Program and The Maharishi Effect, there's a seeming criticism when a reporter asks, an 23% reduction in crime compared to what.
This is easily explained, and I propose to add an explanation, based on what the study says. Crime is known to fluctuate widely based on the weather. Had the course been held in October, the crime rate would have fallen -- because it would have been expected to fall anyway. So critics would suggest that the decrease in crime be relative to the decrease already expected.
The course was held in summer, at a time when crime typically shoots up. The prediction was that there would be a decrease relative to the expected rate. And that's what the study showed. TimidGuy 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to section on Maharishi Effect 

message: It's odd that there are two sections about the Maharishi effect. There is almost complete redundancy between them. I suggest combining the two sections. And since most of the material in the first instance deals with issues and controveries, I suggest that the best location for the combined section would be in the Issues and Controversies section. TimidGuy 11:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to consolidate Maharishi Effect sections 

message: Study coauthor David Orme-Johnson responded to this point. At this time I don't propose to change the article, though, since I feel like the paragraph in question reads well.
Here's what he said:
"The issue is not that crime can be 'accurately' predicted by temperature, but that temperature does have to be taken into account in assessing crime rate change, since it increases during summer months relative to colder months.  The prediction of crime from the temperature is not exact, but is a mean value that is bracketed by a measure of deviation, the standard error of the mean. The mean and standard errors of the mean are based on how temperature has affected crime in the past.  If the actual values of crime during an intervention are less than (or more than) two standard errors from the mean, it means that it is highly unlikely that they occurred by chance, given the known effects of temperature on crime. That is, the effect is said to be statistically significant.  That means that given the way in which crime has covariate with temperature in the past, something new and different happened during the intervention. State-of-the-art methodology for assessing the effects of crime was used in this study, and that is why it passed peer review and was published in Social Indicators Research, the leading technical journal in this field.  Also, it is quite common for there to be a substantial lag between an experiment and its republication, especially when the research steps outside standard dogma.
 
"It is true that many other factors besides temperature influence crime, such as percentage of the population being males under 30 years old, percent of the population in poverty, population density, percent of the population unemployed, etc. However, these factors do not change appreciably on a day-to-day timescale, and therefore are not relevant to this study. Temperature is the only measure of all factor that change on a daily basis, which is relevant to crime." TimidGuy 11:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Orme-Johnson on whether crime levels can be predicted 

message: The Wikipedia guideline "avoid weasel words" has this to say:
"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."
Also:
"Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source."
One of the phrases it advises against using is "critics say that...." I do think this needs to be addressed in the article and propose to give this some attention. TimidGuy 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give some specific examples? If the critics are named and sourced then it is alright to quote them... Sfacets 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't appear to be any way around this. The number of critics are unknown, after all...Sfacets 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with weasel words 

message: I've added information at the beginning of this section giving details about the scale of the research. I propose to also add information about more of the studies, including the research published in the last 10 years on cardiovascular disease. TimidGuy 15:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to section on "TM-related research" 

message: Here's your objecting parent, Andrew. I'm sure there will be a court case at some point:
http://www.marinij.com/ci_4474770 Sparaig 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malnak about to hit the fan... 

message: There are a number of instances of redundancy in the article. I fixed one instance by consolidating the two sections on the TM-Sidhi program and the Maharishi Effect. Other instances include repetition of the Canter & Ernst study and repetition of the Rabinoff material. I'd like to consolidate this too. I think I'd like to consolidate all the science-related material into one section with subheads. TimidGuy 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: I've deleted several instances of conjecture or speculation for which no source was provided. Most recently I deleted a sentence that begins with this: "There appears to be an issue hinted at (though not explicitly formulated)." 
It seems like this sort of conjecture isn't within Wikipedia guidelines. Statements should be well sourced. This appears to be original research, which isn't allowed. Someone is making inferences and then presenting it as evidence. In those instances where an expert states and opinion and that opinion is well sourced, as with the quotations from Pagels in the article, then it seems appropriate to use this sort of opinion. TimidGuy 11:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting conjecture that isn't sourced