Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 3

message: === Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Please ===
The scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation is published in serious peer-reviewed scientific journals over 30+ years. In the last couple of years alone, you can find published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as American Journal of Cardiology (  )-[this study was funded by the US government]; The American Journal of Hypertension (  ); The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (  ).
Here is a list of the journals and universities that have published research on Transendental meditation over 35 years: 
And various top level institutions are interested in the documented effects of TM:
Quote: "Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles department of psychology, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, and the Maharishi University of Management College of Maharishi Vedic Medicine in Fairfield, IA, randomly split 60 African-American people with high blood pressure into two groups. One learned transcendental meditation (TM) and practiced it for 20 minutes, twice a day. The other received standard heart disease prevention education. 
Seven months later, researchers used ultrasound to measure fatty deposits and the thickness of the participants' artery walls. The TM group had a decrease in artery wall thickness, which could reduce heart attack risk by up to 11 percent and stroke risk by up to 15 percent. Artery wall thickness increased in the education group (Journal: Stroke, year: 2000).
There's "very strong evidence from this and other studies that meditation has health-promoting effects," says Prevention advisor John Astin, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. And benefits could extend to all ethnic groups."''
In addition, funding from the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), to study Transcendental Meditation has totalled $21 million in hard-won federal research grants (including a new grant of $1.4 million)
And now several US public schools are using Maharishi's TM to enhance education: 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.17.93 (talk • contribs) .
====Wikipedia policies====
It appears to me that what you are saying is in accord with the Wikipedia policies, especially the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. What happens is that it took sometimes before the editors, myself included, understood these policies. They might not yet be fully appreciated by some of us. There are two other main components to these policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.  Until now, the emphasis was on Neutral point of view and No original research, but it is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability that these three policies should be interpreted all together. Because we did not really appreciate the Verifiability policy, Neutral point of view was incorrectly interpreted to mean that we cannot reject any opinion that is publicly expressed, as long as the source is clearly defined.  However, to the opposite, the Verifiability policy states that the source must be a reputable source in the subject area of the statement. In the case of scientific research, it means that the source must be a reputed peer-reviewed journal. The Verifiability policy states
:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory. 
Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. 
Clearly, this applies to TM-ex associations.  Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing on well supported material 

message: The scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation is published in serious peer-reviewed scientific journals over 30+ years. In the last couple of years alone, you can find published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as American Journal of Cardiology (  )-[this study was funded by the US government]; The American Journal of Hypertension (  ); The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (  ).
Here is a list of the journals and universities that have published research on Transendental meditation over 35 years: 
And various top level institutions are interested in the documented effects of TM:
Quote: "Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles department of psychology, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, and the Maharishi University of Management College of Maharishi Vedic Medicine in Fairfield, IA, randomly split 60 African-American people with high blood pressure into two groups. One learned transcendental meditation (TM) and practiced it for 20 minutes, twice a day. The other received standard heart disease prevention education. 
Seven months later, researchers used ultrasound to measure fatty deposits and the thickness of the participants' artery walls. The TM group had a decrease in artery wall thickness, which could reduce heart attack risk by up to 11 percent and stroke risk by up to 15 percent. Artery wall thickness increased in the education group (Journal: Stroke, year: 2000).
There's "very strong evidence from this and other studies that meditation has health-promoting effects," says Prevention advisor John Astin, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. And benefits could extend to all ethnic groups."''
In addition, funding from the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), to study Transcendental Meditation has totalled $21 million in hard-won federal research grants (including a new grant of $1.4 million)
And now several US public schools are using Maharishi's TM to enhance education: 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.17.93 (talk • contribs) .
====Wikipedia policies====
It appears to me that what you are saying is in accord with the Wikipedia policies, especially the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. What happens is that it took sometimes before the editors, myself included, understood these policies. They might not yet be fully appreciated by some of us. There are two other main components to these policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.  Until now, the emphasis was on Neutral point of view and No original research, but it is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability that these three policies should be interpreted all together. Because we did not really appreciate the Verifiability policy, Neutral point of view was incorrectly interpreted to mean that we cannot reject any opinion that is publicly expressed, as long as the source is clearly defined.  However, to the opposite, the Verifiability policy states that the source must be a reputable source in the subject area of the statement. In the case of scientific research, it means that the source must be a reputed peer-reviewed journal. The Verifiability policy states
:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory. 
Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Please 

message: It appears to me that what you are saying is in accord with the Wikipedia policies, especially the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. What happens is that it took sometimes before the editors, myself included, understood these policies. They might not yet be fully appreciated by some of us. There are two other main components to these policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.  Until now, the emphasis was on Neutral point of view and No original research, but it is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability that these three policies should be interpreted all together. Because we did not really appreciate the Verifiability policy, Neutral point of view was incorrectly interpreted to mean that we cannot reject any opinion that is publicly expressed, as long as the source is clearly defined.  However, to the opposite, the Verifiability policy states that the source must be a reputable source in the subject area of the statement. In the case of scientific research, it means that the source must be a reputed peer-reviewed journal. The Verifiability policy states
:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory. 
Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policies

message: We should follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Here is an excerpt from this policy:
:Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. 
Clearly, this applies to TM-ex associations.  Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Verifiability 

message: We need to come up with a set of guidelines for working on this article and stick tot hem. I had included some very basic information in the article abou the orgins of Transcendental Meditation and it was removed. The information was factual, well grounded in other encyclopedic information, and generally accepted. This information was essentially summed up in "Transcendental Meditation originates from Vedic schools of thought."
Moreover I think that its very silly that people keep putting History in the introduction. The Introduction should be short and explain what TM is not the history and how you feel about Transcendental Meditation today. The introduction paragraph is like an advertisement when it should be objective and explain what TM is quickly and provide a very short synoposis of the entire article. If you aren't familiar with what Transcendental Meditation IS then you should focus the information you have to contribute on sections you're more familiar with. I should note the introduction currently has more history than the history section.
This article will nver be complete until people begin to take this seriously and this starts with the Introduction.
--Dren 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many cult researchers consider TM to be one of the largest contemporary cults. An organization called TM-ex exists for people who formerly practised and taught transcendental meditation. This organization provides support for those who were a part of the TM movement, and information on why they believe TM is a dangerous cult.  One TM-ex claim is that TM is actually a form of hypnosis."
Amrit 03:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "There are a number of questions about the validity and methodology of TM scientific research. Critics point out that nearly all pro-TM research on record was conducted by TM itself, or entities sponsored by TM. " 
Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Also, evidence exists that meditation can lead to more mental problems in psychiatric patients."
Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It must have been an edit of a sentence that was already there, perhaps taken from some other section. So, I might have put it there, but still I must announce myself before taking it out.  Amrit 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Paragraph 

message: Similarly, this paragraph should be taken out. It is advertising the ex-TM organization. Moreover, it contains non supported statements (to justify the existence of this organization). 
: "Many cult researchers consider TM to be one of the largest contemporary cults. An organization called TM-ex exists for people who formerly practised and taught transcendental meditation. This organization provides support for those who were a part of the TM movement, and information on why they believe TM is a dangerous cult.  One TM-ex claim is that TM is actually a form of hypnosis."
Amrit 03:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "There are a number of questions about the validity and methodology of TM scientific research. Critics point out that nearly all pro-TM research on record was conducted by TM itself, or entities sponsored by TM. " 
Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Also, evidence exists that meditation can lead to more mental problems in psychiatric patients."
Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It must have been an edit of a sentence that was already there, perhaps taken from some other section. So, I might have put it there, but still I must announce myself before taking it out.  Amrit 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising TM-ex organizations

message: Hi all,
Re. the discussion points here (although they may not be valid anymore) a few thoughts:
* To have a good article with NPOV, a good amount of consensus is necessary. As that is not available here, maybe we could separate it in two sections--one pro, the other con? That would do away with the current strained style and all those words like "according to", "allegedly", etc. and would simply make the article more pleasant to read. Maybe a moderator could answer this or someone more familiar with Wiki customs and policies.
* Someone was doubting the copyright-free nature of the text. Well, I wrote/rewrote a good part (about half a year ago), without using TM literature, so you can rest assured about that. I'm thinking to add some more, like the difference between generic TM and TM as taught by Maharishi's Movement, but it'll take time. It would be good to have articles on the TM Movement and on transcendental consciousness as well ...
* A propos copyright: I'd like to ask the moderators to remove the external link to the web page with mantras and stuff. Just see this information as being protected by copyright, even though Maharishi doesn't send in lawyers. Would you include a link to a site showing source code belonging to Microsoft?
* One thing I find strange is how people who have never tried TM, think they can write or correct an article describing it. Few people would try such a thing on other topics they are unfamiliar with.
* Someone asked about research references, so I added a little phrase in the text pointing to an external link. Is it OK to do it that way?
Greetings, Ge' (13-4-05)
23-4-5, I decided to remove the external link to the list of mantras etc.
Two days later, someone put it back. Just to avoid this situation, I'd prefer if a moderator decide on this. See my above proposal to divide the article in two parts.
:Hi Ge, the best to start with is giving precedence, where a link to copyrighted material caused problems. As I wrote in the version history, it is very likely that just giving a link is covered by free speech. Otherwise 90% of all external links would have to be removed because almost any external content is copyrighted. -- mkrohn 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. you can sign your message by typing ~~~~
Re the link: I get the point. Although it's a special situation here: the linked site is more or less illegal, because it is publishing not its own copyrighted stuff, but other people's. 
Anyway, I guess I'll have to write/rewrite some parts to make it clear why just using the right mantra does not make your meditation TM. The problem is: if I explain the mechanics, people who read it transcend less easily when they learn TM, because their mind is more in the way...
Any thoughts about this 'split-article' idea? Geke 15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Geke, splitting the article into two sections or writing two articles from two viewpoints is not what NPOV in Wikipedia is about. If you are looking for an encyclopedia project which takes a different approach, then Wikinfo might be interesting for you. -- mkrohn 00:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting pro and con? Copyright? 

message: We need to come up with a set of guidelines for working on this article and stick tot hem. I had included some very basic information in the article about the orgins of Transcendental Meditation and it was removed. The information was factual, well grounded in other encyclopedic information, and generally accepted. If we're all going to keep going back and deleting and changing everything each of us says then we're never going to get this complete. A consensus on each individual section along with careful monitoring after a consensus is reached is essential for progress. This information was essentially summed up in "Transcendental Meditation originates from Vedic schools of thought."
Moreover I think that its very silly that people keep putting History in the introduction. The Introduction should be short and explain what TM is not the history and how you feel about Transcendental Meditation today. The introduction paragraph is like an advertisement when it should be objective and explain what TM is quickly and provide a very short synoposis of the entire article. If you aren't familiar with what Transcendental Meditation IS then you should focus the information you have to contribute on sections you're more familiar with. I should note the introduction currently has more history than the history section.
This article will never be complete until people begin to take this seriously and this starts with the Introduction.
Beyond my reaction above to how slowly this article is becoming worse and worse... I'd like to call everyone to do one thing and that is FOCUS ON THE INTRODUCTION, COME TO A CONSENSUS THERE FIRST. 
Then once you've done this you should move on to History ;) which obviously an essential section. After that we should come to a consensus on the structure for the entire article and let people who are involved in each section be involved there...
We will make progress this way faster. I can't emphasize more that if we can't come up with an Introduction that is appropriate we will not be able to finish the actual content of the article.
--Dren 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on the Introductory Paragraph 

message: I don't understand why critics of TM insist that we precede "It is a simple, natural and easy-to-learn ..." with "The TM organization claims that". The fact that it is simple can easily be verified by asking any meditator. It is not because you have not personnally verify it that it is not a verifiable fact. The fact that it is simple does not look controversial to me. Similarly, for easy-to-learn. After 4 days, 1 1/2 hours each day, you know how to meditate. Ten years old children can learn TM.  Natural means effortless. It is also very clear that there is no effort in TM. It seems that a compromise is to say "The TM teaching emphasises that". This is definitively NPOV. No one can argue with the fact that the teaching of TM do emphasise these points. The word "claim" has a negative connotation.  Amrit 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple, natural, and easy-to-learn

message: In the statement "Proponents have claimed it to be a simple, natural, easy-to-learn mental technique...", it would be better to replace "Proponents have claimed it to be" by a more informative phrase. My point is that, of course, we know that only proponents will make such a claim. This lack of information about whatever supports the claim is not neutral. The statement must be objective, but it should contain as much verifiable and uselful information as possible. I would propose to replace it by the two following sentences: "It is advertised as a simple, natural, easy-to-learn mental technique. Published studies suggest that regular practice leads to significant, cumulative benefits on all levels of life, including mind, body, behavior and environment."  Of course, these are two positive statements about TM, but they are nevertheless objective and factual. We cannot reject them just on the ground that they are positive statements about TM.  These studies  do exist, and they are published in prestigious journals. These journals and the peer review system have not been bought, corrupted or whatsoever by the TM organization. Certainly, there is no evidence to support such a claim. To the contrary, there are evidences that the reviewers and the editors have been even more alert because of the important nature of the claims. The publication of these studies is a significant and meaningful reality. Amrit 08:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponents neutral phrase

message: The levels mind, body, behavior and environment are considered broad levels of life that each includes many aspects of life. I see these four levels as exhaustive of all aspects of life. For example, anything that has to do with taxes belong to one of these levels.  It is not because we say that the studies have covered all levels of life that we mean that they have specifically covered every single aspect of life. Amrit 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the above paragraph was there before the RFC of Sethie. Amrit
Sethie, I admit that a more accurate statement would be in all areas of the
list of broad areas (mind, body, behavior, environment) which cover all aspects of life. They might not be all the areas of life, because you can find subareas, combine them, etc, but alltogether they cover all aspects. Yes it is true that that there are many particular aspects of life that are not covered directly by scientific studies on TM.  Nevertheless, it remains true that there are diverse studies in each of the four mentioned areas. This suggests that all other aspects that are not directly studied are nevertheless improved with TM. There is something here that deserves to be mentioned. I  will find a way to say it, which I hope will please you. It is not important enough to bother other people with this. But, sure, it will be great to have contributions on this or other areas of this article. Amrit 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All areas of life

message: current version:
According to the proponents of TM, the practice helps in integrating into our life the "field of pure consciousness" or "the field of pure intelligence", a field that every human being allegedly possesses in common, and which allegedly interacts with one's daily choices. Proponents also assume that in daily existence, humans of flesh and blood have not integrated this field into their life as much as they could. Since this field of pure consciousness allegedly is only progressive and supports only the good, people integrating this field in their life should spontaneously (without the need of any intuitive or non intuitive intellectual understanding) more readily behave well. This leans on a belief that it is desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly, in line with arguments proposed by Plato's Socrates in Meno and in The Republic.
The last sentence doesn't connect for me with the rest of the paragraph.....
The main idea of the paragraph is- TM connects one to a reality which is life enhancing and in connecting to that, peolpe "naturally" or spontaneously begin to act more harmoniously.
However, what does this have to do with it being "desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly?" 
I say we take out the last sentence... other thoughts?
SAT!
Sethie 07:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure consciousness paragraph

message: Is the German study so insignificant that it was not even included in the 2000 review of 75 studies of Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy?  If it is included then note that the following statement taken from that review applies to it: "None of the studies reviewed tried to disentangle the effects of meditation per se from the influence of the presenting problem or/and premorbid personality of the subjects." So there are two possibilities: either the German study was too insignificant to be considered in that review or else it suffers from the same limitation as all the other reviewed studies. In both cases, this is not a strong critics on TM because these so called "harmful effects" are apparently, in accordance with Dr Otis study, related to prior conditions. Amrit 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it included in the review of 75 studies? 

message: I didn't wish to bring out any more TM dirty laundry, however Lumiere keep pushing.... so here goes. Is the Journal of the American Medical Assoication reputable enough for you?
Sethie 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do provide the details. By the way, please focus on the specific issues that we are discussing, consider the content of this discussion and stop making implicit vague accusations.   Amrit 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: JAMA is a reputable source, but now we have to see what is the statement. I suspect it is not directly about the scientific methods used, but about other issues such as a claim that authors of one paper on TM did not report conflict of interest. If there is indeed some connection between the authors and the TM organization, JAMA could have published a letter to the editor that report this connection.  However, it is very subjective when there is a conflict of interest or not. Consider the following example. Say Dr. X is the director of a national health organization in India, and he also accepted to help Maharishi. The national Health organization in India existed independently of the TM organization and has its own independent agenda. Now, say a researcher work for this health organization and publish a study on TM.  Is there a conflict of interest?   Amrit 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: At the time, I did not yet read the 1991 JAMA article, so it was a guess based on vague memory. Now, I just read the article and I must say that it was a pretty good guess! Why do you say it is totally irrelevant?  Conflict of interest is one of the main issue in that article, and the example I give was just a way to say that it is a tricky issue. The key point here is that it is not the scientific methods per se that are considered, but other issues. Also, you should consider the fact that JAMA has published at the least two other papers on the benefits of TM after this 1991 article!  So, JAMA is not as strongly convinced as you that TM is  cult organization that falsified data, etc.  Note also that the main author of the controversial article is Deepack Chopra, who went to see Maharishi with no or little knowledge of Ayur Veda and then left the TM movement few years after to create his own multinational health industry based on Ayur Veda. Is it the TM organization or Chopra that had the conflict of interest? Amrit 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We should also consider the fact that the JAMA article contains issues that go beyond the expertise of JAMA. Perhaps, only the critics from this paper for which JAMA has some authority should be included in the article. Amrit 21:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   The JAMA papers 

message: The main reason is that the book did not go through any scientific review mechanism. It does not even contain one reference to a paper published in a peer review journal! Even if such references were listed, it would not mean much. However, it shows that James Randi, a magician ("the Amazing Randi"),  did not even try to make it looks like a scientific contribution.  
The second reason is that the story is about a claim  of a former MUM scientist that is not also published. If you read his book, you will see that he refers to a discussion at a conference for which we have no record. We have to take his words!  
In contrast, the subject that is debated here is the Maharishi effect for which we have several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  
Thefore, this is completely against the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The book is not published in a reputable source and the story is about a fact that is also not available in a reputable source. 
Note that the book contains many other stories about TM. I was curious, so I got hold of this book. If you read the book, you will see that "The Amazing Randi" did not even believe in the EEG studies on coherence -- this was in 1982, 24 years ago, -- we must say though. He claimed that the coherence pattern was a trick related to the instrument used, not a genuine phenomena! Today, EEG is used all over the place to succesfully study coherence in different kind of meditations, not just in TM. However, it would  be unfair not to give credit to Maharishi who supported pioneer work in this area.
To conclude, I do not really recommand that you read the book. As I try to explain above, you will spend your time in a better way if you read more reliable sources. Wise people care about sources. This is why Wikipedia should maintain a high level with only contributions that have a reputable source, like a true well researched encyclopedia. Lumiere 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The basic point 

message: So, does Randi claim that he investigated the claims? And what did he find?
Please do not answer any other question for right now, let's go one step at a time.
Sethie 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randi claims that he investigated Dr. Rabinoff's claims. Randi says that he found them to be incorrect.  
I believe this is what you would like that we include in the article. Are you happy? Did we accomplish the first step? So, what is the next step? Are we ready now to look at the Wikipedia policies and see how they apply? I am very much looking forward that we start to discuss these policies in the context of your proposal. Otherwise, we will not progress. I still have some hope, but maybe I am naive. Lumiere 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sethie's questions 

message: Your only niavity would be assuming that the policies are in your favor in this position.
So, your move. Make ONE point. Raise ONE doubt. Ask ONE question.
Sethie 08:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you made many points above, now that it is my turn, I should now reply to them. See above.  I corrected your and Marco lack of understanding of the Wikipedia policies. I could not do that before because you insisted that I only answer your last questions. Please note that I always refer to the Wikipedia policies. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If these policies cannot be used for exclusion, how should they be used? I think that they are there to guide us in deciding what should be included or not. Lumiere 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right. Maybe it is too much to require that the source is as reputable as the sources that it contradicts. I edited my argument accordingly (see above). More importantly, it gave the wrong impression that the current policies were not sufficient. I wanted to make my point stronger, but it had the opposite effect. Thank you for this notice. The current policies are sufficient. Even if the source does not have to be as reputable than a source that it contradicts, it still has to be reputable. I think it is quite clear from the current policy, especially in the case of a scientific content, that it should have some form of peer review that is adapted to the content. Randi's book did not go trough any form of scientific peer review. Lumiere 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staying within Wikipedia policies 

message: Only in Lumiere's world does something HAVE to go through scientific peer review in order to be included. Please show me ANYWHERE in wiki policy that it says this. 
Sethie 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "something" but "scientific content", yes. I already pointed out the relevant paragraphs (see above). Besides, James Randi's book is not even a scientific publication, peer-reviewed or not. This means that the editor did not have at all to be concerned with scientific quality. We can ask those who are currently working on these policies. Lumiere 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies and reputable scientific source: starting to go nowhere 

message: I am not looking for exact wording, even vague wording that resembles your Lumiere Policies would be nice. 
Sethie 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going nowhere 

message: Hi Sethie! Just another thought that I want to share. I think that you should contact someone that knows a lot about Wikipedia policies and ask him how he understand what I am trying to explain to you. For once, focus on trying to understand for yourself, not on trying to engage others in a cruisade against me. Amrit 06:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion to Sethie 

message: I changed:
In the results of this survey, those who continued the practice of TM for more than six months were less positive about the effect of TM than the dropouts. As a possible explanation, Dr. Otis presented evidences that "... dropouts and those who continue the practice of TM may differ in some fundamental way(s) prior to learning TM. [...] The latter appeared to have more problems before starting TM than the former."
to:
He found that those who had pre-existing mental conditions were more likely to report these adverse psychiatric side effects then those without.
Was this part of your accidental revert as well?
If not.... ummm don't I say the exact same thing as you, much less words?
No, your short sentence missed the point, but thanks it helped me to realize that I should make my sentences clearer. Amrit 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why all the extra words

message: Hey there :72.146.186.170-
You removed some links without any explanation... and I'd like to know your thought process around that deicision. 
Sethie 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Links

message: I added in another category, why did you remove it?
Sethie 08:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of fourth category

message: Sethie, please stops adding phrases like "The TM organization replies...". I am not representing the TM organization. I just extract from the knowledge that I read. We can say that the TM organisation says X, Y, Z and contrast X, Y, Z with what the critics say, but it is not a reply. Amrit
If TM is answering criticisms, then it is replying. It also makes the article a little more readable.
Sethie 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The TM organization is not replying anything in this article 

message: Please place comments here for discussion on this claim in the first paragraph. Amrit and I have not been able to see eye to eye on this one.
: Actually it would be better if we respect the current organization and place comments in their appropriate section. Amrit 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sethie, I don't know what is a RFC, but if you look at the final result of these 10 edits, I didn't touch at all your text. Your original RFC, whatever it is, is exactly like it was, with one of my comments inserted and signed like we do usually.  The 10 edits is because I tried in different ways to have a discussion that respects the current organization of topics. Amrit 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC TM improves ALL areas of life

message: For different reasons, user Amrit and I believe this page is not currently NPOV. Please comment here Sethie 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are certainly not going to suggest it is a religion right from the beginning either! So, what will we say?  Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I must say that it doesn't look too bad. I might even say it looks good. "Spiritual" is perfectly fine to me. However, there is no political party. There was a connection with the Natural Law party in the past, but not anymore. This party might not exist anymore. Amrit
That's what a first paragraph would look like, introducing them to TM, not trying to get them desperate to go do it!
Even from my perspective, I can appreciate your point. Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Each side must be considered separatly, not necessarily to take any side out, but to improve it and properly report it if necessary.  This is not again NPOV. This is why I looked carefully at your proposed studies. If we have them, the fact that prior conditions is a plausible alternative explanation, would have to go along with it. Please do the same with the studies on the benefits of TM. Note that vague quotes that attack without stating any verifiable facts the credibility of people (scientifics, etc.) is another kind of things -- they cannot be considered at the same level as published studies. They are not appropriate inside an article in wikipedia. The argument that they represent the alternative viewpoint is a joke. With this kind of argument, we could support any kind of rubbish.  Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that since the TM organization is, in your view point, the main subject of this article, a reference to its official site is neccessary.  It is standard to put a reference to a subject as soon as the subject is mentionned. By the way, I would not mind to only make reference to TM, studies on TM, theory behind TM, and say nothing about the TM organization. Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The movement has closed its activities in the UK. Bad choice. If it is commercial, you might want people to see it by themselve. The official web site is the natural choice, but we can agree to another one. One criteria to consider is that it should not be attach to a particular country because it will misrepresent the movement, not badly, but still not accurately (the culture of the country might show up, etc.)   Amrit 18:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: For the record, this is the fourth time Amrit has removed the NPOV tag without getting consensus... though in his defense, he did put it back once on his own accord. 
Please stop. Consensus is NOT needed to place one. Consensus IS needed to remove one. 
Sethie 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, do you have the reference for this rule! Instead of just repeating it.  It seems a very strange absolute rule. Hard to believe.  Amrit 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Added note: I went to see the page on the NPOV tag, and there was nothing about this rule. Where did you see this rule? I saw plenty of rules that explain when the tag is not appropriate. Explanation when it is appropriate. However, I didn't see any rule that says that consensus is required to remove a NPOV tag. It would be a very surprising rule: only one guy with negative intention could discredit an article simply by adding the tag, and never accept to remove it. 
If you spent some time participating in Wiki other then just the TM and Meditation page, specifically other RfC or NPOV disputes, you would not have this question.
Sethie 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I can accept you words here. Still, since only experienced wikier could know that, do you think that a Rfc about my conducts was the right way?  Why should I have accepted your words the first time when you provided no explanation. You didn't tell me that it was a non official rule that all experienced wikiers follow. I regret that you took it so bad, but I thought you were simply mistaken when you said it was a rule, and so I simply applied the usual suggested behavior which is to provide a minimal explanation in the comment field. My understanding is that even these comments are optional, but only strongly encourgaged. Amrit 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that we should focus on those who keep putting back their own version of sections such "Sexism .." and "Political..." instead of improving on what is already there. Sethie, I definitively agree that additional opinions are needed.
I don't like some of the tone in those sections, but my attention is elsewhere, working in a top down fashion, maybe dialogueing with the person would help?
Sethie 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the NPOV tag

message: Amrit would you be willing to mention some other achievements of the Organization, possibly their peace palaces, or something like that?
Sethie 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro paragraph re-write

message: It is very interesting to write about the TM international organization, but I think that an article that would focus on transcendental meditation is needed. Sethie, the article that I feel that you would like to write with me and others, and I would be happy to participate, is about the TM organization and all its activities, peace palaces, health system, etc. and some sociological aspects of the organization, etc.  I am more interested to write an article about transcendental meditation per se, but I will participate in this other project too. Of course, the article title "Transcendental meditation" will point to the article on transcendental meditation which will have a link to the other article. Except for that link, the article on TM should only have links to resources about TM per se.  What do you think?
 
At the moment, I don't have any desire to engage this topic, I tryint to get what has been written more neutral and up to par. 
It is a big change, I would ask for a RfC before you do it. 
If you do it now, I will oppose it, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because, this article has enough issues already. I am more interested in closing some doors before opening anymore. Anyway if we get this article looking good,  such a switch would be really easy. 
Sethie 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first three sentences of the article call TM a technique, a movement, and an organization, respectively.  Where does one end and another begin?  How do they interrelate?  Where do I look to quickly find (or add) information about one of them?  -- Alan McBeth 03:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: (TM), movement that was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became popular in the West during the 1960s. The movement is based more on the practice of specific techniques of meditation than on a set of religious or philosophical beliefs. As a monk in India in the 1940s and '50s the Maharishi developed a form of meditation that could be easily practiced by people in the modern…
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073184?query=transcendental%20meditation&ct=
Where does one end and the other begin? I can only answer that if in fact they do! 
TM, depending on who you ask is:
~a meditation technique
~an organization 
~a spritual organiztion, hence a spiritual or religious movement 
~a cult 
I have no answers, only questions. 
I guess I am clear on one thing, the TM technique does not exist in a void:
~You cannot learn it without interacting with the TM organization, without becoming initiated into the holy tradition. 
~The TM technique is not presented as just a technique. There are a specific set of beliefs that taught to the person alongside the technique. 
~Some people when they say TM mean the technique, some people mean the movement.
Sethie 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Transcendental Meditation and TM organization 

message: Hey Macro Krohn. Nice to see you helping out with the article.
As for the #- do you have a source? The www.tm.org claims 6 million... curious where you got that #.
sat!
Sethie 16:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the number stems from the German WP article, which got it probably from REMID  (see the headline "Verbreitung", there you can read "TM-Kritiker nennen dagegen etwa 2 Millionen Praktizierende weltweit und 50.000 in Deutschland." -- mkrohn 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: numer of tm practitioners

message: I've protected this page so that editors can reach a consensus on the talk page. -Willmcw 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are very helpful for reaching consensus on whatever topics are in dispute. Since we cannot block the unregistered user who keeps adding inappropriate material to the article, protecting the page may lead him or discuss rather than simly blindly adding material for which there is no consensus. It appears that the last several hundred edits, over the last few days, have been chiefly engaged with his edits and the resulting repairs. Let's give the article and the editors a day or two off and see if that helps. If another admin wants to lift it sooner I won't object.Just trying to be helpful. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Will -- I think that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully disputes can be resolved on this page while the article itself is protected. BCorr|Брайен 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Lumiere, you have commented on the studies twice, saying the same thing, in two different places. Would you please take one out?
Sethie 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leon Ottis studies mentioned twice

message: You cited the Vedic culture as proof that the BG was part of vedic culture, however upon reading it, I found that the BG is considered POST Vedic. 
Now you are claiming it is in Vedic, according to "scholars." Who and what scholars?
Also, please cite a source claiming it is the essence of the Vedas. I have heard it called the essence of VEDANTA, which means "the end of the Vedas," but not the essence of the Vedas.
No need to source them in the article, just list here.
Sethie 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, there is a distinction between Hinduism and Vedic culture, which is considered the source of Hinduism. The Vedic culture produced a vast literature, including the Vedas and treatises such as Ayur Veda in health. The Bhagavad-gita is described as the essence of the Vedas. Modern scholars say that its writing might not have predated Hinduism. However, most scholars agree that the Vedic culture was originally maintained by a long Vedic tradition, an oral tradition that predated Hinduism and of which we have some remains today. 
Nowhere it is written that BG is part of Vedic culture. Amrit 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for claim of not post-veda

message: In the hopes of drawing more attention to this article, and because of Lumiere consistant Pro TM bias edits, I am asking for other editors.
Here is his latest: Some controversy may come from the fact a religious term is used to identify a concept, namely the laws of nature, that is usually not considered religious. However, the issue is only that two different cultures, the ancient Vedic culture and the modern science culture, use different names for the very same concept. In accordance to both cultures, the laws of nature (or whatever they were called in these ancient times) control all aspects of life, including its most tender aspects.
This is a prime example of Lumiere stepping out of the role of reporter or journalist and entering the role of TM-appologist. 
Any and all help in getting this page neutral and DESCRIPTIVE appreciated.
Sethie 21:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some controversy may come from the fact a religious term is used to identify a concept, namely the laws of nature, that is usually not considered religious. However, the issue is only that two different cultures, the Maharishi Vedic culture and the modern science culture, use different names for the very same concept. In accordance to both cultures, the laws of nature (or gods) control all aspects of life, including its most tender aspects.
Amrit 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added NPOV tag, again

message: Read the section "German study" and "Removal of.." and also note that the Intro is not the place for controversial statements. The fact that these studies have been conducted is not controversial at all. Your statement that these studies did not use good scientific methods is very controversial. Note that this Intro was NOT written by a pro-TM.  Amrit 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marco Krohn

message: I suggest that we do as suggested in wikipedia:refactoring_talk_pages. This will help us in separating main issues from secondary issues.Amrit 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring this talk page

message: I propose to remove the NPOV tag on December 27, unless those who put it continue the discussion. Putting the tag may attract people to contribute, but it can also become a leasy way to object to an article. The correct way is to discuss in the Talk page.
:I am still not fine with the "scientific" in the introduction. As TM has published several highly unscientific papers (I have given a reference to one extreme case, namely a paper about the Maharashi effect) the statement is highly misleading. Thus I do not agree with removing the NPOV tag -- mkrohn 22:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing NPOV tag 

message: This talk page exists for something. You should discuss your decision, especially about controversial issues, before making any subtantial modification. The Intro paragraph is currently being discuted. There was a proposal for an alternative (see above). Moreover, you were invited to explain your concern with regard to the term "scientific". You said that one paper in particular about the Maharishi effect is not scientific, and you were invited to provide the reference so that we can discuss. Please note that just saying that you disagree, without providing reference, commenting on others explanations, etc. is not what I call a discussion. Instead of discussing this Intro, you blindly reverted it to a previous version that please you better. The version that you didn't like and reverted was at the least previously explained in the talk page, so I think it does not deserve to be reverted blindly without any previous discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Lumiere (talk • contribs) .
Given the # of edits that have gone on, I have re-revereted Macro Krohn's revert.... Macro, if you want to work on the first paragraph, please do... and there have been lots of edits since the revert. Sethie 17:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marco Krohn again 

message: Sethie, when will you restart to actually discuss the content of the article?   This is really the source of the problem. You don't discuss in the talk page anymore, except to attack me personally as you just did a few times in this talk page. Please stop that. Amrit 02:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumiere's request to Sethie

message: I also propose to remove Dr. Otis study. It was published in a book edited by non neutral people. This book published original research that did not go through the standard peer review process in a reputable journal. I read carefully that paper, but it was before I understood the Verifiability policy. It should not have to explain its content like I did in the article because it does not have a reputable source. This has created a serious bias because so much space is given to a single paper that has no reputable source, and almost nothing of the other papers published in prestigious journal is presented. The situation should be exactly the opposite. Amrit 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Otis study 

message: See #James Randi's book
:thanks, but unfortunately there is not much information provided. -- mkrohn 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Randi 

message: Please comment here on any of the issues raised via RfC:
~Lumiere's removal of the NPOV tag (I have lost count now how many times)
: see #Latest on POV tag removal Lumiere 00:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Challenges to the scientific validity of TM Research, especially the subsection #Sworn affidavit and TM-ex web sites VS Wikipedia policies  Lumiere 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See #German study, especially the sub-section #No reputable source for the German study and the recent #More on the German study. Lumiere 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See #James Randi's book Lumiere 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See #More on Verifiability Lumiere 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I am also unclear as to the origin of Lumiere's belief that placing a POV DEMANDS an "intention" to discuss issues? As an editor, if I see a page that is not POV, I work on it some, and if it still POV in my opinion, I tag it. Not sure this is a contract to participated.   
: My point was that, in accordance with Wikipedia policies or guidelines, a POV tag is an indication of ongoing discussions. However, it does not say that the objective is that whoever puts a POV tag should intend to participate. So, I removed this issue from the Rfc list of issues. Nevertheless, I still feel that a POV tag should not be used as a lasy way to object to an article. The correct way is to use the talk page. Lumiere 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did indicate explicitly a few times that you are stopping communication with me, while the POV tag was there. I must admit that I also felt that I should stop communication with you many times.  Lumiere 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest on POV tag removal 

message: The following paragraph is an edit from myself of a contribution from 24.52.17.93. 
:Scientific research on the benefits of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation was conducted in many different universities and published in hundreds of respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journals  over the last 35 years. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as The American Journal of Cardiology (  )-[this study was funded by the US government], The American Journal of Hypertension ( ) and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (  ).
I finally  took it out because in my personal opinion the first sentence does not have a reputable source for the proposed statement. The TM organization cannot be taken as a reputable source for statements about scientific research done on TM. It can be a valid source for other statements on TM such as the number of people that learned TM because no one else knows, but not for statements about scientific research on TM.  
However, this is just an example of a general principle that I hope will be appreciated by both sides, especially by the TM-ex and anti-cult side, but also on the pro-TM side. We have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Not every thing that appears in some web site of a TM-ex organization or even in a book from a notable man, etc. fits in a Wikipedia article.  Similarly, not every thing that makes perfect sense in the TM web site fits in a Wikipedia article. This is not saying that these sources have no place in the process of communication on the WEB. In the sameway, original research is very fine and useful, but it does not have its place in an encyclopedia.  
The Wikipedia policies are very well done and I think that if we try to understand and follow them, we might actually succeed to work together. Honestly, in the back of my mind, I do have some serious doubts that we will succeed because it appears to be quite a challenge for the TM-ex and anti-cult side. They don't seem to get the point that TM-ex web sites, publishers of books or periodicals without some form of scientific peer review (i.e. without any form of well established reputation in the scientific arena) and other similar sources are not acceptable to support scientific allegations in Wikipedia.  Still, I am trying to pass the idea, no matter how small are the chances of success. Lumiere 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputable sources for both sides: pro-TM and TM-ex & anti-cult organizations

message: Sethie changed 
: "It should be pointed out that the scientific validity of this study per se was never contested, and JAMA still ..."
to
: "It should be pointed out that the scientific validity of this study per se was never contested, only it's central thesis that Maharishi Ayurveda was less expensive then standard health care. JAMA still ..."
This edit contains a strong statement about what is the central thesis of the JAMA paper of Chopra and al. I decided to take this edit out until we can verify that indeed the central thesis of Chopra's article was not about the health benefits of Ayur veda, but about the cost of Ayur veda. It seems surprising. Lumiere 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About last edit of Sethie on the JAMA paper 

message: We are still waiting for some reputable source that comments on the German study. If you have one, please explain why it is a reputable source. Also, make sure that the statement in the article reflects the actual comment that is provided in this reputable source, if you find one. 
By the way, I do not agree with the idea of criticizing the German study, except if the critic comes from a reputable source. At this point, the statement about the German study and the recent addition "unpublished (and thus unsubstantiated)", both are not acceptable in Wikipedia. 
If we do not have a reputable source to support the German study, it should be taken out instead of adding a critic about the current source. 
By the way, I asked a friend in Germany if he heard of the governmental institution that conducted the study. He just replied that he never heard of it.  He only commented that it must be important because it received money for the study. I am thinking that it might be important, but only for one given political agenda.    Lumiere 02:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the German study 

message: Kurt Vonnegut's novel Breakfast of Champions reveals an actual mantra.
The above seems irrelevant. Any comment welcome! Lumiere 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that section. Many wikipedia articles have a popular culture section. Like Nuclear weapons had Nuclear weapons in popular culture, which became a separate article. Likewise, there is Zero-point energy, and a section on Cultural references to ZPE, which is about movies and novels. Stuff that is important to the culture appears in various media and commentaries. So a section on how TM has permeated western popular culture seemed appropiate. The reference to Vonnegut was meant to be only a beginning. Another I just thought of was Charles Lloyd made a jazz record about 1974, called "Transcendental Meditation" ( "A. M. and the P. M.,  T. M. ..."). How can cultural allusions to the topic be irrelevant? GangofOne 08:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a quirk about Wikipedia that I noticed too. Normally on the web, a link in a sentence refers to the topic of the sentence, whereas in Wikipedia, the links are just about the individual topics mentioned, ie Vonnegut, the book, mantras, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with Vonnegut, the book, mantras, etc. My point of the sentence, and you have to read between the line, there exists a best-seller by famous author that has TM as part of the plot, to such a degree that he even reveals an actual mantra. The idea is to alert the reader to the book (part of the culture) and TM's place in it. Sort of a cultural crosslink. Another one for the list: the Woodstock movie (Woodstock was a famous rock concert in 1969 that we old farts know about) shows Maharishi coming out onstage and blessing (I guess) the crowd. Another cultural crosslink. (I see the list of famous TMers are mostly old farts too) GangofOne 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just looked at IMDB and it says it was Swami Satchidananda, not Mararishi M Y. at Woodstock. It's been a long time. (Of course maybe IMDB is wrong. Needs checking.) GangofOne 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And if it wasn't Charles Lloyd, it was Paul Horn, but I think Lloyd. GangofOne 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcendatal Meditation in popular culture

message: To give us both time to discuss issues and each other edits, how would you feel about agreeing to limit the number of edits we each do each day?Sethie 17:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Lumiere

message: The following sentence, which is not from me and has been there for a very long time, was taken out by Sethie, despite the fact that I told her it was relevant:
:This presupposes a belief that it is desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly, in line with arguments advanced by Socrates in Plato's Meno and in The Republic.
It is relevant because it argues that the fundamental objective is not new. Sethie, put it back please. Lumiere 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine!  Lumiere 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is relevant to the TM theory

message: If you are going to lace the first paragraph with so many pro-TM sources, to maintain neutrality, it will be neccesary to put in some contrary.
How about about couple, i.e 1 or 2 in the intro paragraph and put the others elsewhere? 
Sethie 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lumiere's recent 1st paragraph

message: In order to support the claim that TM has gained acceptance in public schools, governmental institutions and in the area of scientific research I provided a few reputable sources. I think that to support well each point, we need to provide more than one source. Sethie deleted many of these sources. Compare my version
: It has received support from public schools , governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH)  and scientific research. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals such as The American Journal of Cardiology (- this study was funded by the US government, The American Journal of Hypertension (and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (]).
 
with Sethie's version
: It has received support from public schools , governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH)  and scientific research. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals. 
 
There is not even on example to back up the fact that there has been published studies in peer-reviewed journal!  She took out the NBC show Today! I think that having more reputable sources to backup a claim makes it more NPOV, because not relying on one opinion, but on many opinions instead.
I have tried to communicate with it ("Lumiere") that my contention is with placing these in the first paragraph, not with them itself. However, it seems to be unbale to process this information.... not sure why.
I chalenge it to find another wiki article with so many sources IN THE INTRO PARAGRAPH. All I ask of it is to move these citations elsewhere, not take them out!
Lumiere is aware of my actual gender, yet for some reason feels the need to call me "she" so... hence my calling Lumiere an "it."Sethie 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reputable sources means more NPOV 

message: I see both spellings in the article TM-Sidhi and siddhi. Isn't 2 ds right? GangofOne 04:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that because "TM-Sidhi" is a trademark or brandname, whereas siddhi is the regular word? GangofOne 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I heard something in that direction. I am not sure. --Lumiere 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  siddhi or sidhi 

message: Regarding the links I added. My attitude towards this article is that there is *never* going to be a version accepted by both sides as the "truth"; rather, people should be given the information, and be made aware of where it is from. They can then make up their own minds on TM.
I consider the (potential) biases of any hosts to be noteworthy too, as any site which is not 100% neutral is likely to favour articles promoting its own views. That's a fact of life in any field. I would appreciate hearing of any better suggestions on how to express this, as I intend indicating this beside the links.
Regarding the onwww.net "propoganda" statement; well, I'm not surprised you hold that view since they distance themselves from official TM. As I said, the reader should be given the information and be allowed to make up their own minds, hence the red link.
By the way, red links are *not* "bad" links if the article they (potentially) link to would be worth inclusion in Wikipedia (if it were written). Please do not remove them solely on that basis.
Fourohfour 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: :Critics of TM refer to a paper that reviews 75 studies on various meditation techniques (of which TM was a part of this eclectic mix of techniques) ). The study found that 63% of meditators experienced negative side effects, including panic, depression, increase in tension and loss of motivation, among other. One methodological challenge this review faced was that "None of the studies reviewed tried to disentangle the effects of meditation per se from the influence of the presenting problem or/and premorbid personality of the subjects." 
Note that this is a review of 75 studies, which obviously contained a lot of positive results about TM. The sentence "The study found that 63% ..." was added by Sethie. Sethie is biased because he only reads the reports from TM-ex and skeptic organizations. Lumiere 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this NPOV? 

message: I do not believe the following statements are factually accurate:
"It has received support from  governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH)." Specifically, the cite does not contain any statements from the NIH.
: the money was attributed by the NIH. If this is not a support, what is a support? Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Determining that something is support or not support requires that I think about it. That is a violation of WP:NOR. Either you can find a quote of someone saying it was NIH supported (in which case an explanation that they recieved a grant would be appropriate), or you can change the statement to "recieved an NIH grant" and provide evidence of such. Support implies support for viewpoint, not monetary support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this was written by an opponent to TM, but I think you see a  problem where there is none.  The statement says that "to spiritually regenerate the world" was the objective of the "movement", and this fact can easily be sourced. Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do so. I have removed the quote in anticipation of such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a quote from the paper. It is easy to put the reference if it was not there already. Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please attribute quotes to the speaker. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text:   The fact that it is a quote from the paper means that the auhors wrote it -- no need to insist on that. Lumiere 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement did not make it clear what paper it came from. If you want to reinclude it, please cite your source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Other problems? I don't see that you even have raised one real problem yet! Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of my agreement or lack there of, please allow me to insist that you follow not only the letter but the spirit of WP:NPA, and avoid even the appearance of commenting on editors rather than edits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Sethie 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  totaldispute 

message: "However, the requirements of the West made him adopt a more secular approach in the 1970s" Needs sourcing.
"He focused on western science both to show theoretical parallels with his thinking and practical verification of the results of TM." Needs sourcing.
"five million people have learned the technique, though not all continue to practice it." Needs sourcing.
I have ed the paragraph in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving onwards 

message: I decided not to lose my time in an edit war. Unless there is an agreement about the issues that are already mentioned in this talk page, all these edits, which only create new issues, will never be a basis for a removal of the NPOV tag.  I am not going to spend time on the additional issues created by these edits. Lumiere 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll remove the uncited information tommorow. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please give in the talk page a complete record of each of your edits: the original version, the modification and the explanation. At some point, someone will revise all your edits and it will be useful to have these records.  Since you do these edits without really discussing in the talk page before, don't be surprise if most of your edits are too dramatic and could have been taken care in a simpler way after an appropriate discussion. To save us energy and time, you should really attempt to discuss more before taking actions in the page itself. I mean don't rush. There is no rush!  Realize that there are many pending issues and you are just creating new ones, and, as far as can see, you provide nothing to help resolve the current dispute.  Lumiere 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The records will all be in the history of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is suggested in the policies or guidelines that you take what you modify in the talk page. It makes communication easier, which is very much needed at this time. Lumiere 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will see statements about what I have changed in the section directly above this. Hipocrite 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement with most of the recent edits

message: I have edited the first para to try to improve the sentence flow without affecting the meaning. However its final sentence is ambiguous:
:Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists that conducted the studies and question the possible negative effects of TM.
This could either mean:
:Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists who [conducted the studies and questioned the possible negative effects of TM].
Or:
:Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists that conducted the studies, and question the possible negative effects of TM.  (Note the comma placement)
That is, it's not clear what the critics are questioning: the scientists, or the possible negative effects. Since I don't know which, perhaps someone can reword this sentence to remove the ambiguity. --BillC 11:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First para 

message: If the study was conducted by a youth group, please cite a source for this statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation for this last sentence is that one can easily argue that internal reports of research institute or other governemental or private organizations do not count as publications. To publish means "bring to the public attention".  Certainly, the standard way is to send it to a publisher. If an organization wants to publish it, it sends it to a publisher. Makes sense? --Lumière 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CITE]]