Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Well, I'm back after a week and there is a reasonable amount of new discussion. Question: If I reply or make a comment in a previous "thread", how will anyone know I did so? Is it necessary to track History to tell that someone has made a comment? Thanks! Tanaats 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. Welcome back. Hope you had a good vacation. To answer your question, as far as I know History is the only way to tell what comments have been added in previous threads. I do regularly check the History so will be alert to any comments you make. TimidGuy 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding this citation [1] after the DeNaro quote starting with "It was obvious to me that [the] organization was so deeply immersed...".

I also propose adding this section after the "Suit alleges mental health required for safe practice". Otherwise, the TM article can leave people with the false impression that only people with a prior mental health problem are alleged to have developed problems from TM practice...

Other allegations regarding TM safety

---

Not all allegations about TM's safety posit prior mental health problems. In the same affadavit Attorney DeNaro (see above) also alleges:

"In fact, meditation was used as an excuse (probably valid) by my students for not completing a project much in the way a "virus" or "the flu" debilitates the average college student. The consequences of intensive, or even regular, meditation was so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system, that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic programs,"

"...In early December 1975, while the Maharishi was on campus, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to adopt a more honest, less commercial, approach to meditation, the Sidhi courses, the curricula, the disguised religious element masquerading as a science, inter alia He was aware, apparently for some time, of the problem, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, serious psychotic episodes, depressions, inter alia, but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it because the community would lose faith in the TM movement."[2] Tanaats 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Of course, from my perspective, having been on campus most of the time 1974-present, these statements are bizarre in the extreme. But, in Wikipedia, my opinion doesn't count. : (

I think we need to determine if an affidavit is considered a reputable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. After all, anyone can write an affidaviit and file it in a court house. Also, in this instance, the affidavit was filed in a suit that was settled out of court. If ultimately we can't agree regarding whether an affidavit is acceptable, we can take it through the various channels of dispute resolution.TimidGuy 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement is objectively true as written, as DeNaro did in fact allege these things. It's analogous to "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India" which is true as written, but could be struck out under the an analogous premise that "anyone can express an opinion about anything" and therefore such opinions are inadmissible. And for another example, Max Planck's statement is just a personal opinion. Or so I see things.

BTW, I respect your own observations, but opinions differ of course. For example, DeNaro's experience is quite congruent with what I experienced and saw all around me on Mallorca/Fiuggi TTC. This is the TTC that Billy Clayton, a "skin boy" at the time, called the "General Hospital" course because so many people were crippled by "heavy unstressing". MMY had to set up "clinics" for the heavy unstressors, where attempts were made to help them with such things as chiropractic and foot massage. One CP went home in such bad shape that his psychiatrist father had him hospitalized. When MMY heard this, he complained in an open meeting about why "such weak people" were allowed on the course in the first place, a response which I now consider to be quite callous in a "blame the victim" mode. I myself went home in such a dissociated state after six months of TTC that I could barely function, which is of course due to something being wrong with *me* according to defacto TMO docrine (since doctrinally there can not possibly be anything "wrong" with TM). And a friend of mine who lived in Fairfield for years is writing a book about her experiences, including the psychological casualties she encountered along the way. Well, enough of the BTW stuff.

Be that as it may, certainly we can check whether affadavits are acceptable. But it seems to me that "anyone can write anything" cuts quite a wide swath. I'm looking forward to exploring this with you.  :) Tanaats 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the affidavit verifiable? -THB 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of in a hurry so don't have much time. But here's a quick take. I think opinion is ok if it's been published by a reputable source, such as a mainstream publisher. An affadavit, as I understand it, doesn't have any special standing or authority. I believei that the article in Wikipedia on affidavit says that it's considered hearsay. I believe it's not admissible as evidence in court unless both parties agree to it. And generally, it's only used if the affiant isn't available for testimony. In the case of Denaro, I think that the affadavit was superseded by his testimony in court. I'm trying to get transcripts of the testimony and cross examination (since this affidavit keeps cropping up).

In any case, I so appreciate your cordial manner and friendliness. I feel like we can work together, with mutual respect of each other's views, and figure out these things.TimidGuy 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth.

Hi, Sethie. As I understand it, an interview isn't allowed in Wikipedia, if by that you mean gathering original quotes. And as far as I know, an affadavit isn't sworn before a judge. (Check out affidavit.] I'd be willing to wager that the affidavit isn't even part of the court documents, since it's not considered admissible evidence, and since in any case the affidavit was superseded by the testimony and cross examination.

If that is what I meant by an interview, yes, I agree with you.... I meant interview more like something that we read in the newspaper or Time magazine kind of interview. Wow- words suck at communicating, don't they?

As for the sworn before a judge, you know what... I assumed that was the case, and boy have my assumptions been oftentimes wrong!

So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does [[3]] and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in. Sethie 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with Carroll's book: it's filled with errors. For example, he says that Bob Rabinoff did a study on the Maharishi Effect related to crime, accidents, and crop production. No such study exists. There is no record of it in any index of scientific literature. He simply has that wrong. And he misrepresents what Randi says in his book.TimidGuy 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, do I hear that Timidguy... i oftentimes don't like what sources say, disagree with them and sometimes find factual errors in them as well.

I am not willing to comment overall on Carroll's book, that is too big a subject for me to tackle.... What I feel moved to say is IF some of Carroll's book is cited AND you find another source that contradicts the specific item from Caroll's book, PLEASE include it as well. That's what wikipedia is for me.... not truth, nowhere NEAR truth, but a collection of cited claims. Sethie 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Sethie -- and nicely articulated -- and shows clear understanding of Wikipedia.

Regarding the proposed addition: it seems weak to me. It just doesn't seem like the sort of reliable evidence that can make Wikipedia strong. The affadavit is a 20-year-old document of no special authority written by a disgruntled former employee who last set foot on campus over 30 years ago; published in part by a heavily biased book that has many careless errors of fact; and filed in a suit whose allegations of infliction of psychological injuries and emotional distress were dismissed by the judge for lack of credible evidence.

Timidguy, you and Sethie know more about Wikipedia so I'm mostly bowing out (just for now though!) However, I'd like to commment on the above...(1) The affidavit being 20 years old doesn't make it inaccurate, (2) the fact that it occurred some 30 years ago doesn't make it inaccurate, (3) DeNaro was corporate counsel to a TMO organization headquartered at MIU as well as an MIU instructor, which IMO gives his statements quite a bit of "authority", (4) Being "disgruntled" doesn't make him any less objective and accurate than someone who is "gruntled" (and although I know you don't mean it this way yourself it is a common form of attack used by cults to call whistleblowers "disgruntled" as if that affected the accuracy of the whistleblowing), (5) Carroll is *certainly* no more "biased" than the TMO webpages that are often cited in the TM article, (6) Whether or not there are errors in Carroll's book doesn't of itself entirely invalidate the book as a reference, (7) The outcome of the suit doesn't mean that DeNaro's statements were inaccurate, (8) The *personal opinions* (and that's what they amount to) of a judge do not make DeNaro's claims inaccurate -- judges make mistakes all the time and as far as we know this may be one of them -- in fact it is extraordinarly difficult to obtain a favorable judgement against organizations where participation results in psychological harm because, for example, of the "they're just disgruntled" and "they must have had prior psychological problems" gambits -- a judge is just not professionally qualified to judge whether or not the problems instead might have been caused by, for example, excessive induced dissociation via TM practice many times a day for perhaps years at a time.

In short, IMO none of this affects whether or not Carroll's quotes of DeNaro are citable. Tanaats 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad to always be opposing you guys. It's not my nature. And I do think there are some valid points that can be made. But it just doesn't seem like this is one of them.TimidGuy 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear that .... and, my answer is: no.

"I hear that" means I get your pain, dislike and concern about the source. "I hear that" means I oftentimes feel the same way about sources!

"No" means I won't go there with you on this disucssion page. "No" means that for me, your or my commentary about a source is origonal research. love, Sethie 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dittos. I have pain, dislike, and concern about TMO sources. They are extremely biased and mostly contain only the personal opinions (that's what his "teachings" amount to) of MMY. But I accept that the TMO side of the story must be told, biased and *completely* unverifiable (except by quoting biased TMO sources) as much of it is. Similarly, I believe that the other side of the story must be given a "level playing field". Tanaats 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. : ) TimidGuy 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Carroll's credibility has gone up, IMO. I wrote to him asking for a citation for his statement regarding Dr. Rabinoff's research. He wrote back: "Go to pages 99ff in James Randi's "Flim-Flam!" and the account of Rainoff's claims is found there. He made these claims in a talk at the University of Oregon attended by Ray Hyman."

Which explains why it couldn't be found in a pub search. Tanaats 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Errrrr! Frustration!!! I am pretty sure about a year about I cited it! I could be wrong here....

Regardless, That's cool you wrote to him! Sethie 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple quick points. As I understand it, Denaro apparently never worked as legal counsel for the university. I've spoken with Steve Druker, who hired him. And I don't think that teaching a couple courses at MIU makes him an authority. (If I thought that an affidavit was a valid source in Wikipedia, I'd write my own, based on my 16 years of experience in the classroom here, and I'd rebut him.)

Yes, I have Randi's book. It doesn't say that Rabinoff did a study. Carroll has that wrong. It's a good example of a half truth. Rabinoff may have made claims at the University of Oregon that Randi wasn't able to substantiate (as is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the

TM-Sidhi program

). But Carroll then twists that to say that Rabinoff did a study. Then Carroll writes that Randi concludes that Rabinoff made up the data. Randi doesn't conclude that. The way that Carroll presents it, the reader comes away with the impression that Rabinoff published a study and made up the data. He misrepresents in small ways what Randi says, and to my mind it conveys something untrue to the reader.

I'm not accusing Carroll of deliberately doing this; he may simply have misread Randi. Or not read it carefully. But it's one of a number of instances where he's inaccurate in the TM article. And I believe that that affects the reliability of his book as a source.

Also, I believe that "the TM side of the story" is verifiable, because there are 160 peer-reviewed studies. (I don't, however, deny your experience with TM.)

In any case, I'm pleased that you read closely what I wrote, especially that you attended to the point about the judgment of the appellate court. I've noticed that often in these discussions we often just scan what the other person says and respond quickly. I've been guilty of this.TimidGuy 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing, Timidguy, to cease posting your thoughts and comments about a source, here, and instead post actual citations that refute the claims of that source?

If you are not willing or able to do that, would you be willing to explain to, how your pesonal thoughts/feelings/views/response to a source, are not origonal research?Sethie 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't quite understand why you're asking me to cease posting relevant information about a source. I thought that was the purpose of the Talk page. And I don't understand the sense in which what I've posted constitutes my personal views. I thought I did a good job of presenting facts about affidavits, etc.

And I don't undertand why I can't research some of these points in order to determine the merit of a source. I thought the purpose of the Talk page is to bring to bear relevant facts to determine whether or not a source is reliable. And doesn't the guideline on original research just apply to the article itself? TimidGuy 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a buncha' responses, but I'll wait and listen to you guys discuss this first. Tanaats 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, given that you're more experienced with Wikipedia than I am, it would be great if you could explain the merger process to me sometime. Do we simply wait for a length of time and then if no one has come to discuss, go ahead and do it? Thanks much. TimidGuy 21:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. And my answer is still no. If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic.

And so, let me make my request more clear, would you be willing to cease your origonal research HERE and find a REPUTABLE source (sorry I don't consider you or me to be one) that shares your disdain for the skeptics dictionary?Sethie 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Also, I was just noticing that the specific paragraphs that Tanaats proposed to add don't appear in the Skepic's Dictionary.

I think this has been a useful discussion, and I appreciate the contributions of both of you. I'm learning a lot. It feels like we've reached a bit of an impasse. It might be interersting and educational to try the dispute procedures. We could do a formal Request for Comment, following the guidelines given.TimidGuy 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for moving the disucssion away from your thoughts and towards wiikipedia policy and the actual article... hence I find more willingness to dialogue with you.

I would also like to say you are correct I was in error- the same material is not covered in both sources (trancenet and skeptics dictionary). For me this discussion is about using material from the Skeptics Dictionary.

I'm cool with that!  :) Tanaats 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a peace of cake for me in this case. If you are able to, please let me know how "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is an issue here? It's not like I'm saying, "Denarro said MMY is an alien from Mars." I would say, Denarro said xyz, cut and paste from the skeptics dictonary, and add citation.

My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR (i.e your thoughts about Denarro, the situation, affidavits, and the Skeptics Dictionary).

You are welcome to do a Rfc. This page has had roughly 4 in the last year. I don't believe a single one drew in any outside comments. Sethie 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I'm glad you feel the discussion is moving forward. And it's good to have your longer-term insight regarding the effectiveness of RfC.

The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

If you are willing, please show me a wikipedia policy which say "The burden of evidence lies with that person."Sethie 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Your response does not answer my 2 question. Are you not willing to answer it? Or are you not able to?

Your allegation 2 paragraphs above say that this "burden of evidence" in WP:V means "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source." I asked you to refference this claim. You did not. You just cut and pasted a quote. Please try again, or say, "I cannot answer your questions, because not such policy exists." or "I cannot answer that question, because I cannot find such a policy." Sethie 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See your question #1. You asked me to cite a Wikipedia policy for the statement "The burden of evidence lies with that person." I can't find anyplace where I said that. I assumed you meant the instance in which I quoted this from Wikipedia: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So I provided the citation for that.

Incorrect, Timidguy, if you go in sequential order, my first question was ":::If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

Yes, I was responding to your second question.TimidGuy 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find where you said "that" I reffer you to, well, you, where you said both statements that I questioned. In fact I just cut and pasted your exact words: "::The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

I think you're right that my paraphrase of that guideline may not have been apt in this situation. I need to look at the guideline and consider it futher. (Can't do it now -- am heading off to play tennis.) I was just looking at the Wikipedia guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Let's give that some attention.

As for apt paraphrase or not, my only comment is that I cannott (and thus far, neither can you) find any wiki policy which says: "it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person."

Assume you understand that that was a paraphrase and that I wasn't quoting guidelines in that instance. (Which is why it didn't have quotation marks around it.)

I never said you were quoting guidelines. I am said you said: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.Sethie 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as moving on to reliable_sources, I am willing to do that, if you are sure you are done with WP:V as an objection for the Skeptics Dictionary. Otherwise I would like to finish here before moving on. Please indicate clearly whether you are done with you contention that that including the Skeptics Dictionary violates WP:V.

It's good we're discussing this. Thanks for sticking with it. Maybe once we have a good understanding of what constitutes reliable sources, we can scrutinize all of the sources cited in the article. TimidGuy 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask me later, I may or may not be up for that.Sethie 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding

WP:V, I think this quote applies: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In my opinion, Skeptic's Dictionary falls down on this matter. Carroll gets a number of facts wrong. I've given one example, in which he says,"One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa." Rabinoff didn't do such a study. I can cite other errors.TimidGuy

19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that you want to focus on wp:V right now.

Please show me a wikipedia WP:V policy which says, If a source gets one fact wrong (according to a wikipedia editor) , that source violates WP:V, and cannot be used. Sethie 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

HEY: This discussion is ridiculous to the point of being embarrassing.

Wikipedia is not even asserting that DeNaro is correct, only that he made the statements, that the statements are relevant to the topic, and that he is a credible source.

The guy wasn't some homeless guy off the street who swore a crazy affidavit, nor was he just some "employee" like the janitor. He was the outfit's corporate lawyer--one of the insiders, one of the bigwigs--and he he blew the whistle on this racket. Like, DUHHH: that would be an authoritative source to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or anybody else writing about this.

On TOP of that, he didn't just give a press conference; he swore under penalty of perjury that he's telling the truth! AND: up until the day he quit in disgust, he was the LEGAL SPOKESMAN for this outfit.

Had you read the discussion, you would have seen that it's a matter of dispute whether he worked as legal counsel for the university.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a credible source? That's exactly like calling Nixon's ex-lawyer John Dean not a credible source.

---> It's not possible for a source to BE more credible

What would it take for this guy to be credible enough for wikipedia? A lie-detector test? Winning the Nobel Prize in "veracity"? He ALREADY swore on a bible!

Or shall we only allow statements by his Holiness The Great Oz-Maharishi on matters like walking through walls, flying through the air, and making yourself invisible?

God DAMN, this is the stupidest conversation I've ever heard between people who weren't retarded.Sys Hax 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Sys Hax.

First off, please remain civil, this page has been through enough shi-crap.

The discussion currently is not about Denarro as a credible source. It is about whether the Skeptic's Dictionary, where his affidavit is quoted violates WP:V, so, are you willing, for now, to focus your attention there? And are you willing to reframe from deragotory and sarcastic comments like the last three? Sethie 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie and Tanaats. The comments of SysHax highlight what I like about you guys. You have both been honorable and decent and fair and civil.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And now, to continue our discussion. Carroll has many facts wrong. Just looking at the sentence I quoted, there are two additional errors. Rabinoff hasn't been on faculty since the early 1980s. So the sentence should have stipulated that he was former faculty. And that he taught at MIU, not MUM. There are many additional errors.

The Wikipedia policy says that sources should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Carroll has three errors in one sentence that just a small amount of fact checking could have corrected. It would only have taken one quick phone call. And I believe that one purpose of the Talk page is to discuss the reliability of souruces.

Thank you for refferencing actual wikipedia policy.

Now, please show me where the wikipedia policy says that the opinion of a wiki editor is how we make that determination. You keep sharing your opinion of the source!

So.... reliable or not.... On the one hand, the guy has a Ph.D., he is on the faculty for a community college, his book has been published by a company publishing books for over 200 years, appears to be a reputable publisher (they did publish Poe and Melville....) [[4]] and the book itself has it's own wiki with no criticism listed!

On the other hand, we have a

WP:SPA

, who has misquoted wiki policy during this discussion, (direct quotes from you: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable; it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."), looked to side issues from the start (is an affidavit a credible source? instead of is the place it is listed credible?; since it was filed out of court, blah blah blah; was his affidavit "superseded" by court decisions?)

And, other then you, there is no evidence that it is a source of dubious reliability.

I believe I have been paitent, and I have had enough of this dialogue. I'm going to put it in as a source. If you don't like it, find some other wikipediaians who believe in your cause, who are not WP:SPA's who have a little more experience then you and I'll dialogue this with them.Sethie 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I believe my critical examination of the reliability of a source is exactly what the Talk page is for. If you disagree, maybe you could show me a guideline that says it's disallowed. And I've noted errors that anyone could easily verify with a phone call. This just isn't the sort of source that should be represented in Wikipedia, at least as regards what it says on Transcendental Meditation.

And frankly, I do feel that editors should take great care in presenting sources that are reliable. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. And they should be grateful if someone points out that a source they'd like to cite has serious problems with facts. I think that it could be argued that that guideline does apply: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's saying that any information that's added should be sourced. And later it says that that source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. How can you sincerely believe that The Skeptic's Dictionary is accurate and has had the facts checked after I've pointed out three errors in one sentence? And earlier pointed out a fourth error in the same paragraph. That's four errors in just one paragraph.

So what do you say -- let's do an RfC. We'll focus it on the reliability of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I'll invite two neutral Admins who've been here before to comment. We can each state our case. TimidGuy 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is that you keep thinking it is your job to evaluate the CONTENT of the source, and not the source itself. The moment you leave out content and focus your attention where it belongs, on the source, on the author, on the publisher I'll discuss with you.

And by all means, invite LOTS of people here. Sethie 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, one might argue that one evaluates a source by evaluating the quality of its content. And, yes I believe that's our job as edtiors.

I'll work on documenting my case for the RfC over the next few days. It will be great to get some outside feedback. I feel like we've raised a lot of good points and have learned in the process -- all in the service of making Wikipedai better.

I do wish you had waited until going through the dispute procedures rather than starting an edit war.TimidGuy 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true you believe that is your job here.

And if you want to look to the start of an "edit war" my reccomendation would be to look to the person who did the first revert.... and that would be you.

Concensus does not mean "everyone agrees." Tanaats, me and I'll give a half vote to sys hax outweight you're one vote.Sethie 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added rebuttals to this new section while I look into doing an RfC.TimidGuy 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noted you think you need to "document my case for the RfC." Feel free to do the RfC the Timidguy way- and if you want to do it the wikipedia way, I suggest you read and follow the four simple steps [[5]] Sethie 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Not sure I understand. I had looked at the steps, and I understood we create a section here on the Talk page in which we each make a statement regarding our point of view. Since I'm going to be arguing that Carroll has errors of fact, uses problematic sources, and has unsupported statements, I was just saying that it'll take a few days to write that up. I've asked an Admin whether RfC is an appropriate venue for this sort of documentation. It could be several hundred words.TimidGuy 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An RfC need not be hundreds of words long. Something like "Is the Skeptics Dictionary a reliable source?" would be sufficient. Then, on this page, everybody can (briefly) make their cases.

My own opinion is that Carroll is a notable critic. If we were dicussing something that he himself had said then I'd say we should include it with attribution. ("Carroll says that..."). The threshold for using him for 3rd-party information is somewhat higher. One editor here says that there are mistakes in Carrroll's work, which is probably true. Mistakes matter, but everyone makes them. I haven't seen any evidence that the Rabinoff assertion is actually a mistake, or that it has been brought to Carroll's attention for correction. Without more definitive information on those mistakes we shouldn't give the issue too much weight. Finally, the Wikipedia community has expressed a certain amount of confidence in the Skeptics Dictionary - the website is linked to from over a hundred articles and a couple of hundred talk pages.[6] So my overall impression is that this particular use of the Skeptics Dictionary is appropriate, pending further information.

Separately, some of the editors of this page appear to be either involved in the movement or involved in active opposition to it. Such involved parties have a heightened responsibility to follow

· 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Will. It's great to have your feedback. And thanks especially for the guideline on Conflict of Interest.TimidGuy 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of feedback I was hoping to get by doing an RfC. So I don't think I'll take the time to document the problems with Carroll's article on TM. Sounds like it would be a hard sell.TimidGuy 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering Denaro to be a credible source is a bit of a stretch. In another part of his "sworn affidavit," he explicitly compares MMY to Jim Jones and says that MMY is more dangerous.Sparaig 03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is quite bit passionate of him, and I happen not to agree. For example, I think that Scientology is much much more dangerous than the TMO, for example. You have to have raw physical and psychological courage to oppose Scientology. However to me his statement just reinforces that he did witness significant human damage, which is reasonable to me because so did I. And so did my friend who lived in FF for years and got the reputation for being someone a person could go to for support and sympathy after they'd crashed and burned (she's writing a book about it and I hope it sells). You can quote DeNaro as saying the JJ thing and let the reader draw their own conclusions. The issue, as I understand TimidGuy to say, is whether the entire affadavit is admissible to the article even if the case was dismissed. And TimidGuy is going to consult the WP legal system about that, which is of course the right thing to do if he feels that way. IMO we'll just have to wait and see what they say. Tanaats 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall what you said about your OWN issues with TM many years ago. You blamed MMY for everything:

From: Joe Kellett - view profile

Date: Thurs, Nov 18 1993 10:09 pm

Not yet rated

show options

Subject: Re: Witnessing

Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental

References: <[email protected]>

Organization: Netcom

James Cook ([email protected]) wrote:

<deletions>

You said you were pleased when it happened. But . . . yes, I would

certainly guess that you have a revised interpretation now. You've

explained how you've consulted with psychologists and cult rescue guys

that have helped you conclude that you may have been psychotic back then .

. . . as evidenced by your two-people-in-one analogy.

You're probably thinking of me. I have consulted via telephone with Pat Ryan at TM-Ex who is a professional "exit counsellor" (a "cult-rescue guy"). He specializes in, but is not limited to, TM. I have also consulted in person with two psychologists specializing in cult mind control. One these is, of course, Dr. Singer. The other is a former Moonie with a license at the Master's level who also does "exit counselling".

As for "psychotic"... After TTC I experienced:

(1) That I was a "rishi" (sort of "seer of cosmic truth").

(2) That I was an "incarnated deva" (analagous to the Western concept of "angel"). This meant that I was of a completely different order than ordinary humans.

(3) That I had been personal buddies with MMY back in the _un_incarnated "deva" days since he was also a "deva" rather than human. Furthermore, because of my special nature I was to play a special role with MMY in the Movement.

Of course, I went to "verify this with the Master".

When I told MMY I was a "rishi", he said I was right. When I approached him that same night to tell him the other stuff, he said "Stop, what you have in your mind is right" and walked off.

I now consider these experiences to have been the result of TM-induced psychosis. But regardless of the cause, I consider MMY's handling of my "experiences" to demonstrate either incompetence or maliciousness on his part.

But I am aware that there are TM explanations predicated on my "weakness" and on MMY's infallibility and impeccability.

--Joe

--

Joe Kellett

[email protected]

As I recall, MMY's instruction to you was "go and be practical in Society" which YOU took to mean that you should go and indulge in fantasies that you were "special" because you happened to have some intution that fit in with what many mainstream Hindus believe about what EVERY mortal is: a former deva who decided to incarnate so he could grow and get on with the business of becoming enlightened. As the kid (Brahma) once said to Indra: "See that line of ants marching by, each one of them was once Indra also." I find that MOST, perhaps not all, but certainly MOST people who complain about how TM ruined their lives are like Indra: quite full of themselves while they are up, and blaming everyone BUT themselves when they are down.Sparaig 17:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While we're discussing the above, I'd like to start a new thread. I have a problem with the sentence "TM is considered a form of "dhyana", using the terminology of Patanjali." This is certainly disputable, e.g. the paragraph goes on to say that the TM meaning of "dhyana" is different from the generally accepted definition. Furthermore, it is too general. *Who* exactly considers it to be a form of dhyana? Tanaats 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. I'd actually like to delete this because I don't think it is a form of dhyana. I don't think Maharishi ever presented it as such.TimidGuy 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Shall I go ahead and do it? It will also take out a reference to "effortlessness", but I think that point is made right at the beginning of the page. Tanaats 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks.TimidGuy 12:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't see you edit summary comment that I should reference the Talk page in time. Tanaats 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I put in the reference to dhyana. In his book, Science of Being and the Art of Living, MMY refers to "transcendental deep meditation" as the "simplest and most important form of dhyana," or words very close to that. Sparaig 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I would then support "Maharishi teaches that TM is a form of dhyana", with a reference to SBAL. "Maharishi teaches" is more NPOV. Tanaats 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I double-checked. At least the latest version doesn't mention dhyana, but his Gita commentary refers to dhyana as "meditation." The Yoga sutras can be interpretted to support the interpretation of TM as dhyana:

http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yoga/yogasutra/ys1_comments.htm#sutra1.12

yathAbhimatadhyAnAdvA [yatha = as; abhimata = per choice [or desire]/desired; dhyànàt = by meditating; và = or]. An MMY-esque interpretation would be something like "or by using any attractive object of meditation." IOW, any object of attention that attracts the attention inward can be used to meditate, though TM itself uses traditional mantras. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs

) 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The Gita commentary is still only MMY's opinion, and should be stated as such. Your interpretation of the yoga sutras is OR in my opinion and therefore "inadmissable". FWIW, according to to Dhyana "Dhyana is distinct from Dharana in that the meditator becomes one with the object of meditation and is able to maintain this oneness for 144 inhalations and expirations." I think this would leave TM out. Tanaats 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy, talk about your uncited sources... There's no mention of "144 inhalations and exhalations" in the Yoga Sutras, and no citation is given for that claim in the mini-article on Hindu dhyana or in the main reference (which is where the link actually takes me). And the URL I gave offers several different translations, including several that approach what I stated:

http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yoga/yogasutra/ys1_comments.htm#sutra1.39

yathAbhimatadhyAnAdvA

yatha = as; abhimata = per choice [or desire]/desired; dhyànàt = by meditating; và = or

Translations:

[D] Any enquiry of interest can calm the mind.

[F] Or [restriction is achieved] through meditation (dhyàna) as desired.

[H] Or by contemplating on whatsoever thing one may like (the mind becomes stable).

[R] Or, by meditating according to one's predilection.

[S] Or by meditating on anything one chooses that is elevating .

[T] Or by meditation as desired.

Sparaig 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, the source is indeed uncited and I'm no expert and if you disagree with it I'll certainly drop it. So...so far AFAIK the only source we've identified for "dhyana is meditation" (not, mind you, a specific kind of meditation but just "meditation" in general) is MMY. And while your analysis may of course be entirely correct, it is still OR. So I'm still left with thinking that "Maharishi teaches that TM is a form of dhyana" is as far as we have evidence to go. Tanaats 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sparaig. You haven't been here in a while. Welcome. I guess I agree with Tanaats. We need a published source. And no one that I've talked to has any recollection of Maharishi talking about Dhyana in the context of Transcendental Meditation. He has spoken about it in the context of the TM-Sidhi program, but that's a different technique. If you can cite a particular statement from his commentary on the Gita, then or course that would suffice. In any case, what you had written was nice, especially the characterization of the effortlessness of the technique.TimidGuy 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think references to dhyan have been edited out of all recent editions of MMY's remarks. He used to refer to TM as "easy concentration" 50 years ago, and has since refined his terminology, as another example of how he's changed TM-speak over the years. Ah... Here we go:

http://www.enmag.org/

Maharishi Speaks to Students: Mastery Over Natural Law

"Atma, the Self of every student—Transcendental Consciousness— is the ocean of knowledge, power and bliss. It should be fully enlivened through Dhyan and Gyan—Dhyan, experience of Atma through Transcendental Meditation; and Gyan—understanding Atma through intellectual study of the Veda and Vedic Literature." —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs

) 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Again, that would only support the statement "Maharishi teaches that TM is a form of dhyana". So go ahead and put that in with the source of the quote above, sez I. Tanaats 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm stupid. I searched the Amazon.com entry for MMY's COmmentary on the Gita and apparently mispelled "dhyana" the first time around. It's still in there:

page 468 "...ends the sith chapter, entitled: The yoga of Meditation, Dhyana Yoga...:

from Back Matter "...The lesson on this process of meditation (dhyana)..."

from Back Matter "...state of yoga belongs not only to dhyana, or meditation, which alone appears to result directly in samadhi,..."

Sparaig 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research. This is really clear. I'd say put that section back in. It should be easy to grab it from the history. And it would be great if you could write the bibliographical citations. If you wouldn't mind, it would be great to reference both.TimidGuy 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research indeed. I'd still want to say something like "Maharishi teaches that TM is a form of dhyana". That is the extent of the support given by both citations. Tanaats 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the objection that dhyana is NOT "meditation" or that it is ONLY MMY's translation of the term, is kinda silly. "Meditation" is THE standard way of translating the Sanskrit word "dhyana" into English. Google dhyana meditation.. Sparaig 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be the "standard" way of making the translation. But I suspect that much subtlety of meaning is lost in the translation. At least I get that strong impression from the Dhyana in Hinduism article. And in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali we find

The eight "limbs" or steps are: Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. A number of commentators break these eight steps into two categories. Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, and Pratyahara comprise the first category. The second category, called Samyama is comprised of Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. The division between the two categories exists because in latter three mentioned steps there is no cognizance whereas in the first five steps cognizance exists.

Neither is sourced, but I'm sure you could check out the Patanjali stuff, in particular, if you want and tell us what you find. In the meantime, I think I'm justified in thinking that "dhyana" is a subset of "meditation". Tanaats 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My favorite generic website on the Yoga Sutras (it provides parallel translations from 8 different authors, designated by "[x]") says:

YS 2.29

yamaniyamàsanapràõàyàmapratyàhàradhàraõàdhyànasamàdhayo 'ùñàvaïgàni

yama - attitudes towards others or towards our environment; niyama - attitudes towards oneself; àsana - practice of postures; pràõàyàma - practice of breathing exercises; pratyàhàra - withdrawal of the senses; dhàraõà - concentration; dhyàna - meditation; samàdhayaþ - contemplation, absorption; aùñau - eight; aïgàni - limbs

Translations:

[B] The eight limbs of yoga re: respect towards others, self-restraint, posture, breath control, detaching at will from the senses, concentration, meditation and contemplation.

[D] There are eight components of yoga. These are: 1) yama - our attitudes towards our environment; 2) niyama - our attitudes towards ourselves; 3) àsana - the practice of body exercises; 4) pràõàyàma - the practice of breathing exercises; 5) pratyàhàra - the restraint of our senses; 6) dhàraõà - the ability to direct our minds; 7) dhyàna - the ability to develop interactions with what we seek to understand; 8) samàdhi - complete integration with the object to be understood.

[F] Discipline, restraint, posture, breath control, sense withdrawal, concentration, meditation, and ecstasy are the eight limbs [of yoga].

[H] Restraint, observance, posture, regulation of breath, withholding of senses, fixity, meditation and perfect concentration are the eight means of attaining yoga.

[R] Restraint, observance, posture, regulation of breath, abstraction [of the senses], concentration, meditation, and trance are the eight accessories of yoga.

[S] The eight limbs of yoga are abstinence, observance, posture, breath control, sense withdrawal, concentration, meditation, contemplation/absorption or superconscious state.

[T] Self-restraints, fixed observances, posture, regulation of breath, abstraction, concentration, contemplation, trance are the eight parts (of the self discipline of yoga).

MMY's own interpretation of Dhrana, Dhyana and Samadhi was discussed in Hankey's article. Samayama, MMY defines as "maintainance, motion and samadhi," and it is the technique used with Yogic Flying and so on, as per the Yoga Sutras, Chapter 3 though of course, his understanding of samyama is somewhat different than those mentioned on that website. Sparaig 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept that MMY interprets and defines as you suggest. As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and put that in the article, including the fact that it is MMY's interpretation and definition, sourced by Hankey. I don't know why we're still dancing around this since if we ignore your inadmissible OR you can't substantiate anything else. I'm going to stop discussing this. If you put anything else in the article then we are going to dispute resolution. End of discussion. Tanaats 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding the following to "Is Transcendental Meditation a Religion?" ...

The TM movement offers "yagyas"[7]. Also called a Yajna, a yagya "is performed to please the Devas, or sometimes to the Supreme Spirit Brahman."[8]

Official TM teachings include teachings about "God", e.g.: "All the Maharishi Yagya programs are with reference to Natural Law -- the Will of God. It is very necessary for anyone who is entertaining the Maharishi Yagya programs to align their life to the rules of purity of life, as they understand purity of life."[9]. "The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator."[10]. "God is found in two phases of reality: as a supreme being of absolute, eternal nature and as a personal God at the highest level of phenomenal creation!" (Science of Being and Art of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rev. Ed. 1967, p. 271). "The solution, Maharishi said, is groups of Yogic Flyers. The impact of the groups will be immediate and clear. 'A new destiny of mankind will dawn when Total Natural Law -- the Constitution of the Universe, the Divine Will of God -- which is present in every grain of creation -- rules the world of human beings as it rules the ever-expanding universe.'"[11]. Tanaats 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have great sources there- the TM organization itself. I propose not creating a new section, just adding it under the current religion section. This material was there, including more of the Hindu/Vedic components of TM, well sourced, until someone removed them. Sethie 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I wasn't clear. I was indeed thinking to put it at the bottom of the current Religion section. Tanaats 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is not a reliable source!!! Just joking. : ) I think this proposed section is fair and could be added. (Though I or someone may eventually add a point or two to try to qualify the statements.)

The question is where to add it. Note that I've divided the Criticism section into two parts, those more directly related to TM and those related to other programs Maharishi has introduced. Maybe it could be divided between the two sections.TimidGuy 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it belongs in the "Religion?" section. Putting it anywhere else would make it quite a bit "out of context". Also it relates most directly to the "Religion?" issue. As for posting qualifications, of course the section should be NPOV (see, I'm learning the lingo!). Tanaats 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\

We could create a new section in the "Other related controversies section" for the point about Yagyas. The heading could be "Are Yagyas religious ceremonies?" It would really be great if we could avoid confusing people by letting them know which controversies are directly relatled to TM and which are related to other programs. Yes, of course, any qualifying ponts would cite sources. TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ok, as I understand where we are: "yagyas" go in the new section under "Controversies" and the rest of the proposed text goes at the bottom of "Religion?". If that's agreed shall I go ahead and make the edits? Tanaats 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Yagyas religious ceremonies is a great subject for the Yagya page, Timidguy, if you want to pursue that topic please take it up there. The bottom line is the TM yagya website uses "religious" language. So keep it with the religions section. Sethie 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've thought about this further and I'm going to flip-flop on this. In my very strong opinion "TM" does not just refer to "TM-the-technique". When people are taught TM-the-technique they are also taught the religous concept of "Cosmic Consciousness" during the 3rd group meeting after initiation. This is their introduction to "TM-the-religion". So TM-the-technique is never packaged apart from TM-the-religion, and I therefore consider the term "TM" to apply to both. Furthermore, I consider everything taught as part of TM-the-religion, including yagyas, to therefore be part of "TM". So I would like to see the "yagya" reference under the "Is TM a religion?" section. Tanaats 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already there and a (neutral) user by the name of Jefffire deleted it saying it was irrelevant. I think this is representing your personal point of view and distorts the logic of the article. A yagya is not Transcendental Meditation. Why confuse readers? It would be one thing if I were saying it shouldn't be in the article. But I've acquiesced. And I even suggested a subhead that used the word religion. This properly belongs in the Other programs section. I've worked hard to clarify the logic of the article by roeroganizing it. Please don't impose your logic and your POV. You're already well represented in the article, being quoted twice. There's a link to your web site. You shouldn't generalize your experience and opinion, and cast everything in terms of it.TimidGuy 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we give a sub-heading for something that will take up 2 sentences?Sethie 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of truth and logic?TimidGuy 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice dodge of the question, with an implied insult. Try again.Sethie 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Sethie, I didn't mean to imply an insult. I feel like I've given a rationale regarding the logical structure of the article and that we should address that point. In fact, if this gets added, I'd like to lengthen it a bit by given a brief context regarding what a yagya is. So it would be more than a couple sentences.TimidGuy 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a clarification that judge Meanor was the lower court judge and that the appellate court judge determined that the puja was a secular ceremony.TimidGuy 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He did not DETERMINE it was a secular ceremony, he said it was. Big difference. Sethie 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I should be more careful with my wording.

Ok, since yagyas are not "TM", how about creating a "Maharishi Yagya Program" (or whatever its official title is) page, and I can put my "yagya" sentence there? And of course an exposition of what the offering is can be placed there as well. Tanaats 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! let's do it. Thanks much.

And I could put the rest of my "religion" stuff in the "Religion?" section in the TM article. Tanaats 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather like those quotes.TimidGuy 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that means I can go ahead and do it, so I did. :)

Oops, I included the yagya quote. Just took it out. Saving it for the new yagya page. Tanaats 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I rather like those quotes too. I got into the whole thing for the spiritual stuff. I used to go to SRM meetings in Santa Monica to hear Charlie Lutes (sheesh! -- he was quite something). At my TTC we heard a tape in which MMY said that someday we could all drop the "science" angle and return to the old-time "spiritual" angle when dealing with the public, but that right now the world was ready for science and not ready for spirituality. I found myself wishing that day would come soon. With all the "God" stuff appearing on TMO web pages maybe he's drifting that way already. But you have to look carefully for that sort of stuff, the PR push is still using what I consider the "science spin". Tanaats 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HOLY MACKREL! Dude, can you get your hands on that tape, or find a reliable source with that piece of info? YOWSA! Sethie 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No tape. No RS. It was a secret. On the tape he also said that TM was the highest spiritual teaching on the planet. And that it was the "tree" of spirituality from which all of the world's religions were branches. And that these branches all taught a distorted version of the Truth. His secret teachings are pretty hard-core. Tanaats 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, everyone, thanks.... points taken, but being of a stubborn nature, and thinking this is important want to pursue this in terms of information somewhere were its appropriate .... again thanks (olive 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

How about changing "...teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..." to ..."teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[12]..."? Otherwise the reference to SCI will be a mystery to many readers Tanaats 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Please do.TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Tanaats 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a quot from a Canadian Newspaper by former TM teacher (and current wiki editor) Joe Kellet/Tanats. Nice interview Tanaats- I had not seen it before.

I also included a further refference from the cult abuse and policy research newsletter which clarified exactly what the judge didn't like about the puja. Sethie 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored MOST of the well cited ideas that were removed.Sethie 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "However, no TM teacher has the qualifications to accurately screen for psychological problems" is not 100% accurate since some of the zillions of TM teachers who were trained might have been psychologists or psychiatrists. So I've changed it to "However, TM "teacher training" does not include training on how to accurately screen for psychological or psychiatric problems". Tanaats 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a good editor. Earlier I noticed that maybe there should be a citation for this. I just added the tag. The first sentence should also have a source.TimidGuy 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The critic in question says the movement is a cult, not the TM technique, hence the rebutal doesn't fit. Also we have been seperating claim and rebutal into different sections- so unless a different modus operandi comes about.. Sethie 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't understand the last part of what you're saying here. But I do think the rebuttal fits. Hassan says explicitly "They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way." I rebutted that by presenting research done at Harvard showing that it fosters independent thinking. That study is unrelated to the point being made by Canter and Ernst. I don't think your move is a good one.

I do think I could have put in a better transition to make the connection between what the study is saying and what Hassan is saying.TimidGuy 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true you can dress it up.... and I am noitcing you did not answer my first objection

And I will explain the second objection.

Please notice that the article as it stands now, minus the German court study we do not have point-counter point right next to each other, they are divided into sections (for example the TM movement's claim about positive effects and critics. Now, would you be willing to answer my specific objections to the way the article was? Sethie 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At least twice this article quotes allegations made in a suit in 1986 alleging harmful effects of TM. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and made an award. The suit was appealed and the appellate court dismissed that particular suit. I wonder whether it's legitimate to quote these allegations when a court has ruled that they were unfounded.TimidGuy 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did the court rule that the allegations were unfounded? Or were the allegations made, and the OVERALL case was dismissed? Sethie 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a number of reasons for dismissing a suit other than "the allegations are unfounded". Tanaats 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have been under the distinct impression that appellate courts do not rule on issues of "fact", but only on issues of "law". I could be wrong. Tanaats 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is very limited. But according to a friend who's an experienced trial lawyer, if there's a technical problem in the case then the decision of the lower court is reversed and the suit goes back to the lower court. He said that a dismissal is much more broad and that an appellate court can dismiss a suit for one of three reasons: 1) lack of evidence, 2) lack of credible evidence, and 3) lack of an adequate claim. I don't understand the third. He said that even if there's evidence and that evidence is found to be credible, a suit can still be dismissed for the third reason.

I'm going to wait on proposing anything related to the 1986 lawsuits until I have some of the court documents in hand. At this time, I only have a very limited understanding of the seven lawsuits filed in 1986. I only know that six of the seven were dismissed, including the ones alleging psychological injuries and emotional stress. The seventh, for fraud, was settled out of court.TimidGuy 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the fraud issue was concerning whether or not the plaintiff had been promised that he would learn to float within some definite period of time, rather than in principle since the TMO teaches that the Yogic Flying technique can lead to floating and has sometime in the past.Sparaig 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting -- it wasn't even specifically related to TM. I do plan to pursue the dispute procedures regarding this issue of citing dismissed lawsuits as evidence of adverse effects. Sparaig, you are a wealth of knowledge.TimidGuy 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to review the guideline on consensus. I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity. It would be good to discuss first rather than just plowing ahead.TimidGuy 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is too abstract for me. I am not willing to dialogue about something as vague as "I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity." Pick a specific point and I will dialogue with you about it.

If you think it would be good to review the consensus guidelines, do it. If you think it would be good for ME to do so, please just come out and ask me to do it.Sethie 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you wouldn't mind I think it would be a good idea to review the consensus guideline.

Thank you- I recviewed it, and will let it sit. Sethie 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One example is moving the study by Alexander without first discussing. There's a guideline that I'm trying to find that deals specifically with article structure and whether criticisms should be integrated or in a separate section. Another example is the question regarding whether it's appropriate to cite allegations made in a suit that was found to be without merit and dismissed by an appellate court. Also, whether it's relevant to cite an award of a lower court if that decision was overturned by the appellate court.TimidGuy 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

After your quest, pick ONE thing and I will address it. Sethie 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note, revelvant to an earlier discussion that touched on examining the reliability of sources on the Talk page, including discussing the accuracy of the content, that this is explicitly allowed in the guideline for Wikipedia Talk pages: "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references."TimidGuy 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a place where I said it was not allowed.

Please show me ONCE where you "compared contradictory facts from different sources!"

TIMIDGUY, YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE. Time and time again I asked you to back up your claims with something other then your own thoughts or your offer to "make a phone call" and you would not/could not.

I didn't offer to make a phone call. I said that Carroll could easily have corrected his errors if he'd made a hone call. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs

) 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Now you are once again misquoting wikipedia policy which asks you to do what I asked you to do!!!!!!!!!!!!! which is compare contradictory facts FROM A SOURCES other then your OWN THOUGHTS and your OWN RESEARCH. You made all these claims about the innacuracy of the Skeptics Dictionary and NOT ONCE did you produce a source!

I love it when you quote wiki policy, please keep it up. Sethie 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was examining the reliability of references. I was, for example, comparing contradictory facts from Carroll and Randi. I was comparing the absence of any mention of a study by Rabinoff in scientific indexes to the fact that Carroll says such a study exists.

And here's one of the instances in which you were critical if my camparing contradictory facts from different sources: " If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic."

I'm not trying to go after you. All I really want is to go back to the process that we had established earlier, of discussing things, achieving a consensus, and then making a better article. And if we can't agree, then I'd like to use the dispute procedures rather than plunging ahead and making changes that may or may not be improving the article.TimidGuy 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected- in our dialogue, you did compare 2 facts, once. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT "examining the reliability of references!" As far as I am concerned, as soon as you step outside your thinking and provide a source, you are not engage in OR and I will disucss that with you.

I have made some swooping changes.... though not really- they are mostly old things that had been taken out. They're done. If you don't like them, pick one and let's start discussing them.Sethie 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that if you certainly are not teaching by example. Without disucssing it first, you just removed some unique facts which were not covered in the repeat paragraph. Sethie 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But you put it in without first discussing. And maybe some of those old things were taken out for a good reason. You have indeed made "swooping changes."TimidGuy 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I made the changes without first disucssing them. Why do you bring that up?

Maybe they were taken out for good reason. Maybe they were taken out by brainwashed Mantra Zealots! Maybe Elvis and aliens came and took them out. Who the hell knows? Instead of posting a "maybe" find out! Feel free to browse through the history and see if you can find a "good reason."Sethie 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to please try to keep this discussion

23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is totally true that for me, "Brainwashed Mantra Zealots" was a way out of line thing to say.... I went for a personal attack to make my point, in in this case weakened what I was trying to say. Sethie 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. I just saw your most excellent apology to TimidGuy! Good work to both of you, and I hope you two can collaborate to make a great article on TM. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. And thanks Dreadlocke for posting the tag and for appearing here to help settle things down.TimidGuy 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the study was already there. Instead of deleting the new insertion of mine, which took out a quote and a nice summary, I have combined the two and moved it to the new section. Thank you- I had missed that. Sethie 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article. You shouldn't post what he says until we've had a chance to discuss. Thanks.TimidGuy 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article or did you do some serious misrepresenting?

Rick Ross hasn't made any comments on the study, hence it is actually you who are misrepresenting Rick Ross. You think he has something to say about the Canter and Ernst article. Interesting thought. No basis in reality- and REALLY interesting.

The only thing to disucss is: A) Is the source reputable? B) Did I accurately cite the source? C)Are their sources (which exclude Timidguy) which contradict what the source I drew form says?

The rest is your OR and belongs on a blog. Sethie 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can present evidence that he's misrepresenting the study. But I don't see the point in doing so until we can agree on the purpose of the Talk page. Plus, I can't keep up with you here. I've got to turn my attention to other things that I've been neglecting. Will be back.TimidGuy 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

YOU CANNOT present evidence that he's misrepressenting the study, because Rick Ross has never made a comment on the study!

If you have sources, cite them and put them in the article!

The talk page is for talking. Sethie 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't know where you got this quote because you don't provide a citation: "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." It's not from the abstract available online, because that says something different. And it's not from the article, because I have that. I believe it's from Rick Ross because that's exactly how he inaccurately characterizes the study on his web site.

Thanks for telling the truth. I looked at the paragraph and it is a bit confusing- since two citations are used, so I added it in again.

It cannot be from Rick Ross, since he has never written an article on it.

He's repeated this verbatim a number of times. See, for example, this article[13]. This is one of his favorite ways of dismissing the research. And it's not true.

I can demonstrate that this is an error by quoting from the abstract online. But I'm afraid that you'll again accuse me of doing Original Research. 1) Please tell me where this quote is from, and 2) and it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this. Thanks much. TimidGuy 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am HIGHLY skeptical that you can demonstrate that it is an error. You can quote from a source though and let the readers decide.

Would the abstract of the study be an acceptable source?

Ahhh- thank you for actually asking! It is from The Journal News/May 18, 2004 By Joy Victory. Time and time and time and time again, and again, right now, I have said that if you quote sources that IS NOT or.

For the 2nd time (you were unwilling or unable to answer it the first time, maybe this will be different) Please show me where I said OR is not allowed on the talk page?Sethie 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Sethie in an earlier thread: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR". (But if you agree that presenting the absract is acceptable to the process on the Talk page, then we can drop this point.)TimidGuy 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reread what you said. I think I'm beginning to understand your point (though I'm not sure I agree). But for now, I think we can drop it if you agree that the abstract is acceptable evidence.TimidGuy 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this." I asked you to show me where I said it was not allowed. You replied by quoting me: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR."

When I read those words, I don't see me saying OR isn't allowed.

So for the third time, please show me where I said OR isn't allowed on the talk page. If you cannot find me saying that, would you be willing to clearly indicate this?

I said RR had not commented on the study. I was in error, you provided me a source showing me a source in which he does.

The source I quoted however does not say they got that information from Rick Ross, hence, the source for the quote I used was Joy Victory, a reporter for the Journal News.

Every step of this dialogue I have encouraged you to cite soureces. And now you want to know if it is okay with me if you cite sources?

Would you be willing to re-read everything I have posted in the last week and count how many times I have asked you to cite sources? Sethie 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please, present the abstracts! Sethie 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is claimed that regular practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM) improves cognitive function and increases intelligence. This systematic review assesses the evidence from randomised controlled trials for cumulative effects of TM on cognitive function. Searches were made of electronic databases and the collected papers and official websites of the TM organisation. Only randomised controlled trials with objective outcome measures of the cumulative effects of TM on cognitive function were included. Trials that measured only acute effects of TM, or used only neurophysiological outcome measures were excluded. 107 articles reporting the effects of TM on cognitive function were identified and 10 met the inclusion criteria." —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs

) 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I really want to thank you for posting the contents of the citation here. Would you please post the actual citation, so I can review it? Sethie 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be found here.

I guess I'll go ahead and delete the following information taken from Rick Ross's web site: "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." As can be seen from the abstract, Canter and Ernst only looked at a subset of TM research (107 studies related to cognitive function) to find their 10 randomized controlled trials. In fact, when taking into account the other 600 studies, there are many many more randomized controlled trials, including about a dozen studies funded by the NIH and published in top medical journals in the past 10 years.

In addition, I would note that there are valid research designs that show causality in addition to randomized controlled trials. I would also add that Canter and Ernst didn't include some studies that might have been included. For example, there were two that they thought might have been randomized controlled trials but it wasn't clear from the abstract. Also, they left out a randomized controlled study by So Kam Tim that used students as subjects. In this case, rather than randomizing according to individuals, the study was randomized according to class. That is, one class did TM and another class was the control. This is common in education settings, because it's difficult to have students within a class doing different things.

Finally, as an aside, I discovered a major flaw in the study by Canter and Ernst. They counted one study twice. It was a very careless error. In fact, there were only nine different studies that they looked at, not 10. I won't bore you with the details, and it's irrelvant to Wkipedia, since OR isn't allowed.TimidGuy 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving your OR at the door! If you find a reputable source that says what you think, by all means, include them.

How are you able to read the whole abstract- the link you give me only points to a summary?

That's the whole abstract.

So- what department are you a proffesor it? Sethie 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. But I prefer to maintain my anonymity. I will tell you, though, that I'm not anyone important at the university.TimidGuy 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. And I have no desire to break your anonymity either. So would you be willing to disclose what your relationship is with the TM organization without being overly specific (i.e. if you are a proffesor don't say what department, etc.?)Sethie 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the last 2 edits by Timidguy because: a)he still not clear who the source of the article is, hence I do not belive he is in a position to evaluate it; b)it is a near direct quote from a source; c)I posted why I restructured something, and he did not respond to it. Instead he went ahead and has reverted it twice now (as have I). d) He has not followed the guidelines posted on this talk page, to disucss changes after they are made them for either of those reverts. Sethie 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I explain my edits above.TimidGuy 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I look above I do see you saying why you don't like the cog section where it is- so I stand corrected, you commented on one of your 2 reverts. Sethie 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The citations for the Pagels quotes were text (like "[70]") rather than links. So I added live links as citations. Sorry, I forgot to log in before making the edits. —The preceding

) 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Tanaats. I'd noticed that too and had it on my list of things to do.TimidGuy 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the "Some TM teachers breaking away" section it says "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer their own techniques at much lower prices." I'm feeling a bit leary of the "offer their own techniques" part. I propose "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction in TM, or instruction in their own techniques that are offshoots of TM[14], at much lower prices." —The preceding

) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Because "Transcendental Meditation" is trademarked, it's illegal for them to call it TM. And legally we shouldn't refer to it as TM here.TimidGuy 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction on their own". Saying their "own techniques" falsely gives the impression that none of them are offering instruction that is faithful to their TM teacher training. Tanaats 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a creative workaround. But legally, we shouldn't even imply that it's TM.TimidGuy 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement as proposed does not violate the "TM" trademark, and there is therefore no legal problem with it. Tanaats 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can check legal counsel.TimidGuy 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

TMO legal counsel? Tanaats 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'd check with the General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management, licensee of the mark Transcendental Meditation. He also is an attorney for Maharishi Foundation, LTD, the U.K. charity which owns the mark.TimidGuy 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. But if you get a response that agrees with your assessment, I'll want to start the WP dispute resolution process.

And FWIW, here's a quote from MMY that seems to relate to this topic...

"30 or 40 thousand teachers of TM I have trained, many of them have gone on their own, and they may not call it Maharishi's TM, but they are teaching it in some different name here and there... doesn't matter, as long as the man is getting something useful to make his life better, we are satisfied". (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Press Conference, May 14, 2003)."

There's an MP3 on Fairfield Life where MMY makes this statement. I'd want to include this statement if the TMO objects to my proposed rewrite. Tanaats 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I wouldn't of course cite an MP3 on FFL as a source. I just mentioned it as evidence to you that the quote is legit. Tanaats 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Timidguy you never cease to amaze me! Who cares if it is illegal for them to call the technique TM or not? What POSSIBLE bearing could that have here? In NO way, shape or form is that our issue. That is an issue for the General Counsel.

Our issue is WHAT DO THEY CALL THEMSELVES? How do THEY speak of what they teach.

"And legally we shouldn't refer to it as TM here." Knock it off! We are an encyclopedia. If they call themselves TM, we REPORT, hey, they call themlselves TM. If they don't we don't. If they kinda do, we report, hey they kind of do. It is really, really simple.

Instead of wipping out your Legal-talk-talk, and running to the phone, why not focus on wikipedia-speak? We can't "refer to it as TM here." because that would violate NPOV. WE cannot pass judgement on whether it is or is not TM, we just report what sources say.

So call GCfMUoM, Make phone calls, write letter, yada yada. This encyclolpedia however is SOOOOOO much simpler then that! —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs

) 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Those who have said they're offering TM have been sued, and have received a cease and desist order. They no longer call it TM. And I believe that Wikipedia shouldn't call it TM or imply that it's TM.TimidGuy 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently does not call it TM! Wikipedia does not imply it is TM. Wikipedia currently reports the following facts: former TM teachers, disgruntled, teaching their own technique.

If the people teaching say, hey this is TM, then Wikipedia MUST say, "These people say this is TM." If there is documentation or offical statements by the TM organization saying no it isn't, then Wikipedia MUST say, "And these people say it isn't." Never, never, never, must we, however pass judgment, or try to convey through the article, this is/this isn't genuine TM. On that issue, we must remain neutral, or we stray into the land of OR, do you see? It is up to us to report facts from cited sources. Let us see how they call themselves. Sethie 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and get the opinion of TMO counsel. Then, if they agree with you, we can go into dispute resolution. No problemo.

As a side note, these guys have indeed been threatened with lawsuit and have put up a buncha' disclaimers. But these guys seem to be getting away with it. Maybe British law and Italian law are different. Tanaats 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system.TimidGuy 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably try it anyway. :) It can't hurt anything. and the sentence as it stands is misleading. Tanaats 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. Let's hear what the TMO lawyer says about it! Tanaats 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to let us know who you are or what your official relationship is with the TM movement. "Our legal consuel," and you seem to know the exact person and his duties rather well.Sethie 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Timid Guy. I'd make a terrible lawyer.TimidGuy 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question: Am I a lawyer? and thank you for asking the question, since I didn't!

I asked what is your relationship with the TM organization. Are you willing to answer that question open and honestly? Sethie 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding the MMY quote (see above) about rogue teachers to the section. It certainly can't hurt anything to quote him. Tanaats 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the guidelines disallow discussion groups as sources.TimidGuy 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know how a "MP3" located on "Fairfield Life" is a discussion group? Please let me know how a recording of the founder of the movement is a discussion group? Sethie 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW Tanaats so glad you pushed for the wording on this section- I just looked at the TM Independent site and they DO very clearly say, THIS IS TM. Good work.Sethie 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't need to cite the discussion group if that turns out to not be allowed. AFAIK I can cite "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Press Conference, May 14, 2003)". Actually, I'll want to do that regardless. Tanaats 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah discussion groups aren't allowed... and I don't see it as an issue, with the other strong source.Sethie 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the discussion stopped (although maybe I didn't give TimidGuy enough time, sorry if so) so I went ahead and did it. We can still discuss it if I jumped too soon, but actually, I think that the impression the quote gives weighs rather positively on the pro-TM side. Tanaats 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there are legal issues involved. I've sent this section to MUM's legal counsel (who is inconveniently out of the country at the moment). If he feels that this is problematic -- for example, if it's promoting trademark infringement, then the next step will be to determine at what point Wikipedia becomes liable. At first I thought that if it simply appeared in Wikiepedia and has legal issues, then the next step was simply for legal counsel to contact Wikipedia. But maybe I first need to make more of an effort to disallow this (including dispute procedures) before the lawyer guys step in. In any case, we'll wait until we hear back from him.TimidGuy 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If the TM organization gets on our case for reporting facts... well, by your fruits shall you know them.Sethie 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't think editors have any liability. It's a Wikipedia issue. And maybe I'm off base on all of this anyway. But legally, what they're offering isn't TM. We need to think how to deal with that. And I do need to check with legal counsel —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs

) 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I have now problem with the concept that they're violating the tradmark if they call their offering "TM". I just don't think that my revision violates the trademark. It doesn't say "what" they are teaching at all, and I (who has a whole year of college "business law" :) ) don't think that an "implication" is actionable. And I have a definite problem with the statement as it was, since it gives they impression ("implies" if you will :) ) that the rogue teachers go out and make up something out of their heads, which is a distortion of the truth. Having said that, I'm willing to go whatever way you want with this in terms of resolving the disputee. Tanaats 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. I may be off base on this. But I do want to check with our legal counsel, since as with any organization, it's very important to protect one's trademark.TimidGuy 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. No problemo here. Tanaats 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me where I say that "legally what they're offering is TM."

The FACT of the matter is, the UK place says, THIS IS TM. That is the fact of it, that is what is happening, X is saying Y.

Is it TM? I don't know, and I don't care. That is not a wikipedia issue. Let's stick to facts, ok?

"We need to deal with that." No, no, no, no, no, No, nO. You, as a private citizen, NOT a wiki editor feel the need to to deal with that, and it sounds like you are. And I request you do it somewhere else.

I believe this is at least the 2nd time I have said this, and thus far you have not responded. Would you be williing to let me know if you understand the difference between wikipedia reporting on facts and wikipedia taking a stance on issues? I am sure if you read the Hitler section, it presents what Hitler says. Does that mean wikipedia is siding with Hitler? Sethie 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fact that they call it TM. And it's also a fact that they're violating the trademark. And a fact that people have been sued for their violation and are now more careful in how they present their technique.TimidGuy 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here on wikipedia, IT IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THEY ARE VIOLATING TRADE MARK. It is your opinion, and has no bearing here. Cite a source, or go write about it on a blog.

It has no bearing on this article right now. Would you please stop disuccsing things that don't pertain to the article here?

This is the third time I have asked you to stop discussing this thing which has nothing to do with the article here. Would you be willing to let me know why you wish to choose a wikipedia talk page as a place to disucss something that has no bearing on the article? It sounds like you really want to talk about this, present your side and be heard.... maybe we can together find another venue for you to do that? Sethie 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All most certainly true. But none of this makes my edit, exactly as written, a trademark violation. And MMY himself has come out publically and verified that there are some rogue teachers that are teaching as they were instructed in TTC: "...they may not call it Maharishi's TM, but they are teaching it in some different name here and there...". Substituting "Maharishi's TM" for "it" we get "...they are teaching Maharishi's TM in some different name here and there...". If MMY says this in one of his public news conferences, then I honestly don't see the point of objecting to my much more harmless sentence. But do what you gotta' do, or course.  :) Tanaats 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the ad populum, opinionated statements at the beginning of this section need a citation and need some rewriting. (Note that this section was originally added by a representative of Natural Stress Relief.)TimidGuy 12:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a quote from the Natural Stress Relief web site which explicitly states it's not Transcendental Meditation.TimidGuy 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Timidguy, just as you cover my half-truths, looks like I am covering yours! I added a quote from the the TM independent web site which explicitly states it is Transcendental Meditation.Sethie 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks.TimidGuy 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Or I should say- they say they are teaching TM! :) Sethie 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if it would be OK if I deleted "on the other hand." The guideline on

Words to avoid suggests not using conjunctions like "however," because it prejudices the latter alternative over the former. This instance may be similar. Or it may not. But my preference would be to omit.TimidGuy

22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt a little uneasy about it myself.. I'll take it out.

And btw, just wanted to be clear- since typed words don't convey tone- my tone above was loving-teasing- 5 year old chant tone. :) Sethie 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. : )

Tanaats, regarding the Maharishi quote. Does it meet the guideline of verifiability? Which stipulates that a person should be able to verify the information by going to the original source? Is a recording of this particular press conference online? Or a transcript?

Also, regarding the new web site that was added. It says nothing about this person being a former teacher of TM. Can anyone come here and post an ad for his or her brand of meditation?TimidGuy 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a recording wouldn't meet it, unless the source is bad, I would like to see the link to the MP3 personally.

Good catch, the website hints but doesn't say the person was a former TM teacher, I'll take it out. Sethie 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie, for removing that. I agree -- if the recording is available online, then it's verifiable. Right now the only citation is the date of the press conference.TimidGuy 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear as to who can be added to this list of teachers? Apologies for editing without reading this discussion first... I'd like to add three teachers - Lavender Meditation in the UK, Intro To Meditation in the US and Tim Brown Meditation in Australia. I know these people - all are teaching in the tradition of Maharishi but are independent teachers and do not use the terms Transcendental Meditation or TM to promote themselves. Is there a way to add them to this list of 'official' unofficial teachers? It seems like there is value in offering alternatives to readers who are interested in the technique, but not interested in the TM organization. Thanks in advance. Mmiller500 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Michael

It doesn't seem like Wikipedia should become an advertising vehicle for everyone teaching meditation, especially since there's no way to know what each person is teaching. I'd say that it's sufficient to make the general point and then give two examples.TimidGuy 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If their website makes it clear that they are former TM teachers, or are somehow related to TM, yet not doing TM, or offering TM cheaply, etc., I would like to see them included, and none of the ones you have presented above appear to meet that criteria. Sethie 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded to my pointing out that the initial sentences contain unsupported opinionated statements. Also I had pointed out that the Maharishi quote doesn't seem to meet the guideline of verifiability. If it's OK, I'll go ahead and do a rewrite of the initial sentences so that they reflect what the UK web site says in regard to why teachers are breaking away. And I'll delete the Maharishi quote.TimidGuy 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok with me. I'm not attached to the MMY quote. I just stuck it in to validate that some teachers were offering instruction based on their TTC training. I dunno' if it should be considered "verifiable" or not (I'd have to consult a WP lawyer) but I personally I don't mind if you delete it. (Dang, this whole section is huge!) Tanaats 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Take out the first sentence, we can re-write it.

Before you take at the MMY quote, how do you think it does not meet WP:V? Sethie 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, however, that there is a ton of stuff in the article that is completely unsourced. My little MMY quote is actually quite well sourced in comparison. Tanaats 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as it stands now, we have the date that he said these words, and an actual recording of him? So I am rather curious how this doesn't meet WP:V.Sethie 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He said those words. However, he said them in response to a question about whether the questioner should learn TM or stick with his own group, whose teachers apparently teach something very similar to what MMY teaches, according to the questioner. MMY ASSUMED that it was TM taught by "renegade TM teachers" that the questiner was asking about. OTOH, there is a group in the UK that claims to teach MMY's original technique using a single mantra. Since MMY makes a big deal about using different mantras selected for different individuals, it hardly seems likely that this group was the one that MMY had in mind, and yet, I believe it is one of the ones that is/was mentioned om the Wikipedia article on TM as a "spin-off" TM group. They also sponsor the archive of the anti-TM TM-ex website, so its hard to believe that they are otherwise agendless in how they teach meditation so again, I doubt if this group was the one that MMY had in mind in his response. IOW, MMY may turn a blind eye to renegade TM teachers, but not all people (even those who contribute to Wikipedia posing as former TM teachers) may actually be former TM teachersSparaig 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuuuuuuse me, but did I hear that right? "Posing?" I assume you mean me, but you say it as if it were a known fact. Was that your intention? If so, how exactly did you catch on to my little game, psychic ability? Private investigators?  ;) I certainly hope you didn't actually mean that since you seemed like a dispassionate and reasonable person who wouldn't be making personal attacks.

As for MMY's statement, it seems pretty darn hard to misinterpret to me. I don't see a reason to not take it at face value, even if MMY made some assumption. But, in the absence of psychic ability that can reach back in time, I don't see how we know whether MMY assumed anything or not! He's pretty damned intelligent, an absolute genius in my opinion. And he's very sophisticated. I think he says exactly what he wants to say. So I think that taking his statements at face value is a very reasonable policy.

Yes, MMY has for some time made a big deal about different mantras (although actually there are only a few even in recent times) selected according to age (and in the past according to sex) for different in individuals. But we cannot assume from this that he has always used a lot of mantras. So I can't accept that "it hardly seems likely" since I find it "quite possible".

As for NSR, I can't find in the TM article where it says that NSR is a "'spin-off' TM group". Again, it might be old age, so again please quote the quote. The article says "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction on their own" which is actually literally true for NSR (unless David Spector is another poseur of course ;) ).

As for "They also sponsor the archive of the anti-TM TM-ex website, so its hard to believe that they are otherwise agendless in how they teach meditation so again, I doubt if this group was the one that MMY had in mind in his response"...AFAIK TM-Ex never took a position against the TM technique (at least I never read that in their materials and I read quite a few of them). They did take a position that the TM Org was a destructive cult. There is no logical conflict if NSR thinks the technique is "good", but the TMO is "bad". As for "agendaless", do you not have "agenda" yourself? And if you do have one does that make you somehow inherently untrustworthy?

Ignoring your apparent psychic ability to somehow know (unless I completely misunderstand you which I do hope I do) that I am "posing", I agree that not everyone who claims to be a former TM teacher is ipso facto actually a former TM teacher. But that is rather obvious so I don't what point you are trying to make by pointing it out. Tanaats 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And why all the upset about that little bitsy quote? I actually think it comes across quite positively and makes MMY look rather magnanimous. I should be the one fighting to take it out.  :) Tanaats 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Posing" as former TM teachers, thanks for the laugh Sparaig. Please keep such comments to yourself or disucss them on the conspiracy theory talk page.

Trying to read MMY's mind or intentions is OR to the extreme. Trying to guess the agenda of spin-off groups is OR. Just stick with the fact, and if you are going to make accusations, just make them, don't half make them, ok? Sethie 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think of it as a fight. I just wanted to listen to it and verify that it was correct and try to understand the context to see if something else should be included. So I went to the citation thinking that I was going to be able to listen to it, but only the date was given. As I understand it, the guideline WP:verifiability requires that people be able to examine the source. If the recording is available online, then the quote meets the guideline. And if it is available online, please put that in the citation. I'd like to listen to it.TimidGuy 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Sparaig's comment about people posing "here" as former TM teachers referred to the "Breaking Away" section of article rather than the Talk page. And I believe we've already seen an instance of it. In the link that Sethie rightly removed the woman claimed to have spent 14 months in northern Arizona learning to teach meditation. But I don't think that there was ever a TM teacher training course in northern Arizona, and I don't think a teacher training course has ever been taught for a duration of 14 months.

I appreciate your attempt to make peace, but read again: "even those who contribute to Wikipedia posing as former TM teachers". "Contribue to Wikipedia", mind you. If Sparaig is referring to someone other than me, it is certainly not very obvious. And he certainly could spoken for himself by now and offered a clarification; that he has not done so by now is significant I think. Absent such a clarification I think it is extremely reasonable to consider it a personal attack. You certainly have your convictions, and I'm certain you must have been frustated as hell with me and Sethie many times, but you've alway been courteous. I think that Sparaig owes me either an apology or a clarification. We'll just see what happens. Tanaats 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, at this point we seem agreed that we need to be cautious about letting people put in ads for their meditation technique in this section of the article. And we seem to be in agreement that the unsupported opinionated statements at the beginning need work. And we seem to be in agreement that if the recording of the press conference in question isn't available, this source may not meet the guideline of WP:Verifiability.TimidGuy 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to continue to explore this with you, but it reminds me that we should also explore verifiability of passages such as "including celebrities such as the Beatles, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, film director David Lynch, Scottish musician Donovan, and actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine." In fact, there is a ton of stuff in the article that is unsourced, most of it explaining TM teachings. Tanaats 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently the teachers listed are former members of the TM organization that have broken away. Is that the only definition of a TM teacher that is acceptable? There are people being trained to teach TM now, other than by the organization. Why should they be automatically excluded? If anything, they would have less of an agenda than former teachers with a grudge. It seems as the article stands that two specific groups are being endorsed as "official" TM alternatives just because they have come to a legal agreement with the TM org about using the trademarked term on their sites. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Mmiller500 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the title of the section is "Some TM teachers breaking away". I think the implicit intention is to discuss people who were trained as teachers by the TMO, but who then started teacher outside the auspices of the TMO.

Actually I don't think anyone got agreement from the TMO that they could use the trademarked term on their site. NSR was threatened with lawsuit and responded by putting up disclaimers all over their site that they were not teaching "TM". I don't know how the "TM Independent" folks are getting away with it without being sued but I strongly doubt that they've come to any arrangement with the TMO. Tanaats 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of "In a large-scale literature review published by the Middle European Journal of Medicine in 2003 reported that "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." [15]" deletes a lot that isn't replicated by "Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." [22] isn't represented fully by the Canteer quote that remians.

I propose replacing the Canteer quote that remains with the entire deleted section. Tanaats 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In "Alleged Harmful Effects of Trancendental Meditation", why was "a sworn affadavit" changed to "an affadavit"? Tanaats 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there another kind of affidavit other than one that's "sworn"? Seemed like it was redundant.TimidGuy 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno'. And neither will a lot of other people. A little redundancy won't hurt if it informs people who aren't familiar with the nature of affadavits. Tanaats 22:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I hear affidavit- I think- something legal. When I hear sworn affidavit- I think- legal statement- that someone actually testified or swore is true. That's how my mind reacts to the two. Sethie 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I just thought it made Wikipedia sound naive.TimidGuy 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put "sworn" back in. Tanaats 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) Wasn't there a "counter-point" citation here previously? If so, wha'happened to it? If not chalk it off to me having a "senior moment".

That was the study by Canter and Ernst, which Sethie moved when he created a new section about the validity of the research.

(2) The statement "Research on Transcendental Meditation suggests that it fosters independent thinking." is too general. It is supported by only a single cited study. I propose changing it to "A research study on Transcendental Meditation suggests that it fosters independent thinking." Tanaats 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are other studies on field independence. But that sentence was originally meant to be a transition from the previous paragraph. But Sethie moved this study from where I had originally put this. As it stands, I feel like its pointless having it there and that it could be deleted.

I wish Sethied hadn't moved it. I had put this into the article as a rebuttal in the cult section to the quote from Hassan: "They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions. They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person." This research and other TM studies on field independence suggest that TM fosters independent thinking. Psychologists have a range of standardized measures that they use, such as the embedded-figures text, to come up with a measure of field indepence.

The guideline on NPOV says that both points of view should be represented. The cult section now represents only one point of view. I made that point in another thread, to no avail. And readers are leflt with POV.TimidGuy 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to rebute! Let the facts speak for themselves! Readers are not left with a POV, they are left with facts! Cite people who directly say it isn't a cult, and then readers will have those facts too, not ONE study about ONE component of the alledged cult.

I posted two reasons above why I moved it, and why I don't believe moving it back is not a good idea.

As of now, you have responded to neither. Would you be willing to answer the objections I posted above before introducing new factors into the disucssion?Sethie 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hassan has made a general statement -- TM is a cult -- and has suppoorted it with a specific reason -- that the organization controls thinking. It's a very common form of argumentative discourse to rebut the general statement by rebutting the specific reason.

And I think the location of a reference to a scientific study that rebuts his point about controlling thinking is properly after he makes the point, not in the research section. Otherwise readers won't see the connection.TimidGuy 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the TM article is so long, and because "Sthapatya Veda" is essentially being given "special treatment" by appearing on the TM page rather than being a link under "Other programs offered by Maharishi", I propose that "Sthapatya Veda" be moved to its own article. The new article can be titled with whatever the TMO's official designation for that offering is, and can be linked to under the "Other offerings..." section on the TM page. Tanaats 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I support that Sethie 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for suggesting it. The article title would be Maharishi Sthapatya Veda.TimidGuy 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok...the TM article is too long, and there is a lot of stuff on there about things that are "not TM". So how about moving the following sections to other appropriate articles?...

(1) Move "Marketing of herbal products" to

.

(2) Move "TM-Sidhi Program and the Maharishi Effect" to

.

(3) Move "Political activities of the TM organization" to Natural Law Party.

(4) Move "Maharishi University of Management" to

.

(5) Keep "Tax-exempt status" where it is..

(6) Keep "Some TM teachers breaking away" where it is. Tanaats 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this. I believe #2 and #3 are pretty much repeated verbatim in their respective articles. These sections were left as placeholders.TimidGuy 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this too, the article is too long and it's readability is somewhat hampered by it's length. Here's some information I hope you find helpful on spinning off new articles from this one:

• Summary style
• Breaking out a controversial section
• If a section is a summary of another article

Dreadlocke ☥ 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dreadlocke. Wow, that's just a bit complex. After I take a hack at the "Maharishi Sthapatya Veda" subarticle, would you mind checking me out? Tanaats 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been swamped the past few days, but I'd be very happy to check it out as soon as I get a chance. I'm sure it looks great! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made a start anyway. The Sthapatya Veda section has been moved to Maharishi Sthapatya Veda. There's still more to do according to the references provided by Dreadlocke, such as creating navigational templates. Tanaats 19:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think these are good changes. Thanks so much. I didn't know about these other tnings that need to be done when I created the articles on the

TM-Sidhi program and Global Country of World Peace by splitting them off from this article. I guess we should tend to those as well.TimidGuy

20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just added a navigational template above "Footnotes" Tanaats 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An easy start would be to add a "main" template, such as I put at the top of Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, to the other subsidiary pages. And we could put navigational templates on those as well. Tanaats

I went ahead and did that. But I have to go back and revisit because I didn't know about the "Maharishi Vedic Science" article. Are there any more that I've missed? Tanaats 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks so much, Tanaats, for doing this to all these pages. Really appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia.TimidGuy 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your're welcome! My own web site is completely biased to my POV, but so are the official TMO websites. But here I think the concept of NPOV is a good one, and I'm happy to do whatever I can to clearly present all POVs. (Wow, I sound so pious! :) ) Tanaats 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So do I need to ask permission on those other pages before moving stuff? Tanaats 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you can just go ahead. It's great that you're cleaning up the TM article in this fashion.TimidGuy 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the moves. Check it out please. Tanaats 18:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Only had time at the moment to glance at the TM article. Really looks good to have it streamlined like this. Wow, great work.

By the way, we should move the NRC subsection that's in the Research section to the new section on validity that Sethie created.TimidGuy 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, did that. Tanaats 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the article there's this line: "1. REDIRECT Template:Totally-disputed". Whazzat? Tanaats 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag is correct. May be a temporary Wikipedia glitch. I think for now we can leave it and see if Wikipedia gets the template corrected.TimidGuy 02:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The template was changed for consistency with other templates, but apparently there was a problem with the redirect to the new one. I established a link directly to the new one, so we're good. I hope.  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Dreadlocke, and for keeping an eye on things here. Your assistance is helpful.TimidGuy 16:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the data the Timidguy has presented, I re-wrote the paragraph on the canter and ernst study, using their exact words in refference to the outcomes.Sethie 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd do that. I had rewritten it earlier so that it wouldn't be misleading. Most readers will think that "negative effect" means "adverse effect." As I explained in an earlier posting on the Talk page, "negative effect" has a technical scientific meaning. To best represent the study and not mislead readers, we should go back to my earlier rewrite.TimidGuy 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to post a summary of some of the errors, falsehoods, and half-truths that were added to the article this past week, along with the corrections made. The purpose certainly isn't to criticize anyone -- after all, this is all part of the Wikipedia process. But I thought that by highlighting them it might be instructive. Maybe we can learn something about our sources and processes that will help make this article even better in the future.

• 1980 German federal study shows adverse effects (Skeptic's Dictionary) -- 1985 German government retracts study because it was unscientific and biased

I don't think that the skepdic quote is a falsehood or error; it is true as stated. And if it is a "half-truth", then whole thing makes a "full truth" with the addition of the statement that based on a judge's ruling. I see no problem with fully documenting both facts. I happen to believe that a judge's personal opinion (which is what it objectively amounts to) automatically makes it "true" that the original study was unscientific and biased. (For example, the NJ decision doesn't automatically make it objectively "true" that TM is a religion, it just reflects the opinions of a panel of judges.) So let's just present both facts in an NPOV way and let the readers digest the controversy and come to their own conclusions. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was meant as an example of a half truth. I'm fine with putting in both parts.

• affidavit in 1986 suit alleging adverse effects (Skeptic's Dictionary) -- suit was dismissed by appellate court

Readers deserve to hear both sides since (1) AFAIK we don't know that the appellate court somehow psychically determined (and that's what would be required) that DeNaro was lying and then made that the basis of their decision and (2) see above, same argument applies IMO. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• study shows only 10 of 700 studies were randomized, controlled trials (rickross.com) -- study selected 10 RCTs from a subset of 107; there are many more than 10 RCTs

Dunno'. It does say "Trials that measured only acute effects of TM, or used only neurophysiological outcome measures were excluded", which could have excluded most of the research on TM (though I don't know what they mean by "acute effects", though hopefully the learned readers of the journal would know :) ). So AFAIK the quote might be true as stated. Dunno'. I do think that the preceeding section on positive TM research is pretty impressive, so I think the total effect is an NPOV.

The study clearly says the 10 RCTs are a subset of the subset of 107. It's a falsehood to say that the study says there are only 10 RCTs in 700.TimidGuy 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Falsehood" is an emotionally loaded word, with a lot of negative connotations including an element of intentional misrepresentation. Can we use "innacurate" instead? And are we talking about this?: http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm93.html? If so the fault is with Joy Victory of The Journal News. You'll be lucky for a reporter to get everything right in an article. If we're talking about something else on the RR site, do you have a link so I can catch up with the conversation? Thanks. Tanaats 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about "falsehood." Yes, Sethie had quoted Joy Victory's article. I noted in the discussion of Canter and Ernst that Rick Ross had said verbatim the same thing in a number of instances and gave a link to one such instance. It's oft-repeated. And I guess that's why I used "falsehood." It is, after all, a major criticism. And the abstract is readily available. I could see if maybe one reporter got it wrong. But to have it repeatedly used suggests that something else is at work. But you're right. It's not really fair to use "falsehood" until I point it out to Rick Ross that he has it wrong. I should do so.

By the way, I wonder if it was clear what I meant by "half truth." For example, I was suggesting that mentioning the German TM study was a half truth in the sense that it was true that such a study existed. I called it "half" because the other half was that the study was retracted. My "correction" was simply to add the other half, feeling that having both points was the best representation of the matter.TimidGuy 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand now. Yes, it was good to add that other half. Tanaats 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud... I think that the studies support the Maharishi Effect are absolute bunk. I'd like to add my counter-point that just because a study appears in a peer-reviewed journal it doesn't make the conclusions "true", e.g.

Bible Code. Dunno'. Maybe you don't feel that is an argument that responds to your position, just thinking out load as I said. Tanaats

19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1986 suit awarded Kropinske $138,000 -- suit was dismissed by appellate court

See above. I think we have NPOV here. The appelate court can't be psychically certain that the allegations in the Kropinksy suite were "certainly" false. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Malnak case: appellate court judge Meanor says puja an issue (Hassan's freedomofmind.com) -- Meanor was lower court judge

See above. Just pointing that out in the article gives NPOV I think. It's certainly a matter of opinion whether the puja should be an issue or not. The NJ judges thought that it was an issue, AFAIK, in which case you have judges disagreeing with each other. I've never felt that a legal decision absolutely determines "truth", whether I agree with the decision (as in the NJ case) or not. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The point here was that the article implied that Meanor was an appellate court judge. It cited the appellate decision and then gave the opinion of Meanor without stipulating he was the lower court judge. So I corrected that. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs

) 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I can't speak for TANAATS, but I am glad you're here checking this stuff. And I will and I bet tanaats will be just as through in our investigation of an pro-TM claims. Sethie 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see your point now about Meanor. Cool. And yes I'm glad you're checking. Tanaats 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Malnak case: lower court judge Meanor says puja an issue (Hassan's freedomofmind.com) -- appellate court judge Adams says puja not an issue

See above. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are more such corrections needing to be made, but it takes time.

Would be willing to discuss any other corrections you think need to be made. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what we can learn from this. Of course, I feel that falsehoods and half truths found on sites such as those by Rick Ross, Robert Todd Carroll (Skeptic's Dictionary), and Steven Hassan suggest that these sites aren't reliable sources. I pointed out just one falsehood on Rick Ross's site (about the Canter and Ernst study), but there are many. All of these sites are careless in their characterizatin of Malnak. They all present half truths -- such as citing the German study but failing to note it was retracted, or citing things related to the 1986 Kropinski suit (including the Denaro affidavit) but failing to note that the suit was dismissed by the appellate court.

Again, not totally convinced that "falsehood" describes the study found on the RR site. Would be willing to discuss other errors on the RR site, but maybe that should be on private talk pages? As for Malnak, I'm not sure "careless" is necessarily true -- perhaps they feel as I do that it is the job of the lower court to determine "fact", and it is only the job of the appellate court to determine whether the "law" was followed in the proceedings of the lower court -- I don't think this of itself makes the skepdic article distorted. Ditto for Kropinksy. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Several of these points remain in the article, along with the negating point. Not sure what purpose that serves, though since these points are widely available online maybe it's good to both present the point and the negating point. Or maybe there should be a separate section or a separate article the presents the common falsehoods and half truths along with the corrections.TimidGuy 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If we left out everything that was commonly available online, there would be very little "TM article" left! We could almost delete the entire article and let people google for information, pro and con, about TM. We could probably do the same thing with a ton of other articles on WP. I think that presenting the negating point is the thing to do and gives NPOV. I think that if there were a separate "falsehoods" page then we'd be in the same boat, since I'd want to present counterpoints to the points you would make there. So I don't see the point of doing that. And, AFAIK, of course you couldn't call it a "falsehoods" article without violating NPOV.

I have a problem or two myself. Personally, I think that the "Transcendental Meditation-related research" section is extremely distorted. I would like to point out that, for example, none of the research investigates the psychological impact of long-term intensive rouding. IMO I think that the "good" research on TM accurately reveals that "intense relaxation can be a very good thing" but that this leaves the reader with a very false impression that the TMO position on the "absolute goodness" of TM is completely true. I feel very strongly that focusing the public's attention on the "science of relaxation" is an excellent example of a very sophisticated job of spin doctoring. On my own website I can get on my soapbox about this and scream this to the world (or at least the small fraction of the world that visits the site :) ). But on WP, after my first chaotic introduction to WP guidelines I have learned that I have to grin and bear it and to focus on providing verifiable counterpoints. Tanaats 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My mantra is: cite sources, cite sources, cite sources. Which you are doing and I am doing. As for half-truth, lies, etc., etc. If you can't find sources which say that, well, refer to my mantra. I concur that the one Rick Ross quote sure as heck seems different from the study I read. And the TM claim that the mantra is meaningless sure seems different from what I read from ex-Tm teachers.

The bottom line is, cite sources, cite sources. It is not up to you or me to figure all of this out. Just cite sources. As you are doing, as I am doing.

Is TM a religion, who knows? But we can cite sources both from the TM side and the other side which address the issue. Etc., etc., etc.

Without me, I bet on the puja issue, you'd just cite the judge's opinion that the puja is secular! Without you I would not have found the judge who said it was! Where is the conflict for you? Wihtout me, would there be a single critical study in this piece?

If you look at my long edit history with this page, not once have I removed a statement that was well sourced and says TM is good, benefitial etc, nor have I challenged any of the pro+tm things you have put in that was wel sourced. All I have sought to do is to include the criticisms. How could we be at cross purposes here? Sethie 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do we call the yagya page? "Maharishi Yagya Program"[16]? And what about jyotish, it seems to be inextricably linked with yagayas. Tanaats 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats, for asking. "Maharishi Yagya" is the registered trademark so let's go with that. And thanks again for all the improvements you're making to the various articles. And it's fine that you qualified the Maharishi and TM-Sidhi articles by saying that "Maharishi states." I hadn't even known there was an article on the Raam.TimidGuy 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Ok I created the Maharishi Yagya article. To start it off I inserted a quote from the TMO yagya page, then added my "Are yagyas religious?" section and quote. Tanaats 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your work on reorganizing things. Am working under deadline today so won't be able to respond to your NLP question or look at your work on the other articles.TimidGuy 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have an "expert" template at the top of the article? Is an outside "expert" on the topic supposed to show up as a result? Tanaats 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This was put there by an anonymous user. We can delete it if you want. I've noticed that anonymous users tend to come through and tag articles without making any comment on the Talk page. I really don't think that's what Wikipedia has in mind. I think we're free to delete them in these instances if we disagree.TimidGuy 12:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took it out. Tanaats 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that

18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting this. I'd be inclined to leave it as it is for now. I was talking to someone about the issue. He said that the international Natural Law Parties have very different legal contexts compared to the U.S. Natural Law Party. He thought that the articles could be merged but that we'd have to make very clear distinctions -- since statements about the party in one country wouldn't necessarily apply to the party in another country. Since I'm not up to speed on this, I'd like to hold off for a while. But I definitely think we should have this as a goal.TimidGuy 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem with putting it off. It's not an urgent thing, more of a "nice to have". Tanaats 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.TimidGuy 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Maharishi Yagya page references "Maharishi Jyotish", yet doesn't explain what that is. Maybe there should be a "Maharishi Jyotish" page. Tanaats 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like there should be. Thanks.TimidGuy 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

TM researchers approach TM research from two angles: practical, studies where results arre used to by the TM organization to promote the practice, and theoretical. where the researchers attempt to fit findings about TM and any long-term changes due to the practice into the theoretical framework that MMY provides, and reconcile this framework with the modern scientific world-view. The wiki entry sorta covers the practical aspect, but completely ignores the theoretical aspect. The most recent research and theories concentrate on things like correlating reports of transcendental consciousness with physiological changes in the brain and physiological markers such as breath suspension. The bleeding edge is Travis's work on thalamic activity during TM based on brain imaging studies of meditators. Travis and Wallace and others have developed a theory to explain HOW TM works from a neural-circuit perspective and ongoing work is trying to see if this theory works. Autonomic and EEG patterns during eyes-closed rest and transcendental meditation (TM) practice: the basis for a neural model of TM practice Sparaig 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'd say go ahead. Maybe not too long. Someone else I know is also planning to work on the research section. He feels that the current section is poorly organized and could be effectively categorized and could do a better job of highlighting the research in recent years that's appeared in the top medical journals.

I'm hoping to add information to the section on higher states on Travis's three studies on a group of subjects experiencing cosmic consciousness.TimidGuy 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Say hi to Fred for me. Tell him I haven't completely abandoned the brain animation thing, unless he's already found someone else to do it for him... BTW, talk to Fred about the relationship between dhyana a TM. This paper says:

It is significant that, in describing the TM technique (55,56), its founder has always stated that it involves neither concentration nor contemplation, indeed that ‘dhyan’, the essence of yoga meditation (9) involves neither of these categories of mental process. In the Yoga tradition from which Transcendental Meditation comes (9), ‘dhyan’, the process of meditation, involves an expansion of awareness, mediating between the focus of ‘dharana’, when the technique is innocently introduced, and the unbounded awareness of ‘samadhi’, or transcendental consciousness, to which the mind is naturally and automatically drawn. ‘Dhyan’ does not involve concentration, for any effort or concentration interferes with the natural, expansive response of the mind. The TM technique's founder emphasizes that ‘concentration’ is a recently introduced mistranslation of the words ‘dharana’ and ‘dhyan’, and results in failure to transcend (55). It represents a misunderstanding of this aspect of ‘meditation’.

Citation 55: Travis FT. Transcendental Meditation technique In Craighead WE and Nemeroff CB (Eds.). The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science . 2001; 3rd ed New York John Wiley & Sons pp. 1705–6 Sparaig 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's great. Really clear. We can paraphrase this and cite this encyclopedia as the source. Will tell Fred about the brain animation when I see him.TimidGuy 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good. My only comment is that I would request a slightly changed formulation of a couple of sentences to "He teaches` that Dhyan’ does not involve concentration, for any effort or concentration interferes with the natural, expansive response of the mind. The TM technique's founder emphasizes that ‘concentration’ is a recently introduced mistranslation of the words ‘dharana’ and ‘dhyan’, and results in failure to transcend (55). Also that it represents a misunderstanding of this aspect of ‘meditation’." —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs

) 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

As long as everyone understands that it is the PAPER [17] that is paraphrasing Fred Travis's encyclopedia entry already. Fred is the one being cited by the author to support the passage above.Sparaig 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope I understand you correctly. If that exact text is quoted in the paper, then fine. I just ask that it is made clear in the article that the entire quoted text is a paraphrase of Fred's statement. (And who the hell is Fred :) ) Tanaats 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Idon't think it is quoted from Fred's article int he encyclopedia. I was actually responding to TImidGuy about his claim that no-one at MUM had heard of MMY talk about dhyana and TM. Fred Travis is the head of MUM's Brain Research Intitute. He did his PhD work there on the EEG of Yogic Flying. He left for a while and did sleep research elsewhere, then came back.Sparaig 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying Tanaats 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Let's not project my ignorance of Dhyana to everyone at MUM. : ) If it's OK, I'll go ahead and put in some information about Dhyana in the next couple days, referencing the Maharishi quote that you found and then offering an explanation that would paraphrase Alex's paper and cite it. This is a great opportunity to highlight the effortless nature of the technique --using sources. Note that the original Dhyana sentences, while pleasingly written, didn't cite a source. Thanks, Sparaig, for pursuing this and for your insights and research.TimidGuy 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tanaats 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The paper by Alex Hankey is published in the online version of Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) a peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press. It paraphrases Fred T's encyclopedia entry. I quoted from Hankey's paper above. I see no reason why we can't use Hankey's paper as the source of the quote or some paraphrase of it, even thouh he, in turn, cites Fred's encyclopedia entry.Sparaig 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite new at "Wikipedia law" but as I rather feebly understand the concept that sounds like a proper "secondary source" to me. Sethie? Tanaats 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page I asked you to reply to my concerns I had posted last week about the cognitive section which you had not and still have not to, so I will re-post them here.

The critic in question says the movement is a cult, not the TM technique, hence the rebutal doesn't fit, at all.

Please notice that the article as it stands now, minus the German court study we do not have point-counter point right next to each other, they are divided into sections (for example the TM movement's claim about positive effects and critics claims about negative effecst are seperated.

I don't object to the information- I object to you putting it right there- and, YOU making a link between Hassan's criticisms and the studies. You are not a reliable third party source- find me someone who is and has commented on the relationship between the two. Sethie 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I replied to you on your Talk page that I would post a response. And I did -- two days ago.[18]

I'm ready to do an RfC. I think the rebuttal fits for the reason I said. I think that your requirement is arbitrary and unnecessary.TimidGuy 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not notice your response.

It is interesting to note, that to this day, nearly two weeks after I posted my reasons why I don't believe they belong together, you have responded to neither of my objections. I have even pointed you to their exact section and cut and pasted them again.

Do a RfC if you feel the pull to. Don't respond to the Comments (as in rfC) that are already here if you feel the pull not to. You are a free agent.

I have posted, and reposted very specific reasons why I do not believe they fit together. You have not responded to them. Would you be willing read the following section and actually respond to the SPECIFIC concerns I raise, which I am now posting, for the third time?

"The critic in question says the movement is a cult, not the TM technique, hence the rebutal doesn't fit, at all.

Please notice that the article as it stands now, minus the German court study we do not have point-counter point right next to each other, they are divided into sections (for example the TM movement's claim about positive effects and critics claims about negative effecst are seperated.

I don't object to the information- I object to you putting it right there- and, YOU making a link between Hassan's criticisms and the studies. You are not a reliable third party source- find me someone who is and has commented on the relationship between the two."Sethie 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel like my response which you hadn't noticed clearly addressed these questions.

By the way, David Orme-Johnson makes a cogent argument along these lines. I can cite him.[19] He's published over 100 studies on TM and is one of the world's leading researchers on meditation.TimidGuy 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now here is a nice solid refference that you could use without YOU connecting the dots. This citation says exactly what you want to say, so why not use it, instead of YOU putting in some of your ideas about how things are connected or not? That is my other main objection to the sources cited, you were making the connection between- these studies say X (impoved independence), and that means Y (NOT A CULT!) when the citations did not say Y. And I will not allow any sneakiness- we will make clear that Orme is talking about the TM Technique and when Hassan and the others are reffering to the TM movement. Sethie 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. I'm glad you think David Orme-Johnson is a good source. I'll write up a rebuttal quoting from him and using his logic.TimidGuy 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean, you are going to do what you are going to do and my request of you is to report on what Orme says instead of TRYING to rebute anything.Sethie 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My own take on the "cult controversy" is that *of course* the TM organization is a cult... Seriously, with millions of students, tens of thousands of TM teachers, hundreds of TM centers in many dozens (100+?) countries, the claim that TM isn't a cult is ludicrous: EVERY organization of that size is a cult from the US military to Wal-Mart.. "Cult" is short for the sociological term, "sub-culture." The question is: is the TM organization a *destructive* cult?Sparaig 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "cult" has a myriad of denotations and connotations. This is recognized by cult critics[20]. And, yes, the term "destructive cult" is usually much preferred by those same critics. I would prefer that usage, personally. The only problem with using it on WP is that the term has been "

hijacked" to mean "cults where people die". That is not the usual meaning intended by the cult critics. There is a brief mention of the what I consider the "preferred" usage in that article, but it is not a strong enough mention IMO. I really should go over there and ask that the article be divided into two sections. Anyway, the only thing I would be concerned about with using "destructive cult" is that people might get the wrong impression of what that means from the "destructive cults" article. Maybe I should make fixing that article my next priority. Tanaats

19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all former TM teachers created equal...

Here's the quote from the instituoo scientia webpage, which maintains the TM-ex archives. The article takes MMY's quote completely out of context, and erroneously claims that until 1970, he was teaching TM using a single mantra. :

The Natural Stress Relief technique ($25.00 only) is similar to the original TM taught by Maharishi in 1958, with a single basic syllable or "mantra" suitable for anybody (around 1970 Maharishi started to prescribe different "mantras", but this did not change the effects of TM at all). The Natural Stress Relief technique preserves the full effectiveness of Maharishi's TM and is 3 to 4 times more effective than Benson’s relaxation response and other techniques, including autogenic training, self-hypnosis, audio brainwave techniques, meditation techniques.

The Natural Stress Relief technique was created by Raymond Harrison (Ph.D. in physics), an expert practitioners of the original technique (since 1983) and a former TM teacher. He was charmed by the changes in EEG patterns during the practice of TM and he studied them in physical terms with another physicist, Fabrizio Coppola.

Ah, it is "natural stress relief" that is afffliated with instituto scientia:

faq.Sparaig 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find an MMY quote at that site. Might be old age. Would you mind quoting the quote? And I dunno' about the single mantra thing because reports differ. Tanaats 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reports may differ, but the site certainly quotes MMY in this context [21].Sparaig 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I can't prove that MMY only taught one mantra in 1958, or even only taught two, but in fact, here is what he said about his meditation system and how many mantras might be found in it in 1956 in a publication called Beacon Light of the HImalayas:

For our practice we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life. --Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, c. 1955-6. Sparaig 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that as it's quoted in the article I believe. However, I suspect that "RAAM" is the name of a "personal god", and it is reported as being the only mantra for men in 1961. Yes, NSR might have screwed up a detail since the only mantra for women is reported in the same page to be "SHIRIRAM" and that is of course multisyllabic. Maybe NSR is using "Raam" as the monosyllabic mantra for all men and for all women, in which case of course the women are likely to get totally screwed up. But whole concept of a "single monosyllabic mantra that is used by everyone" in TM prehistoric times close enough to being correct IMO. Your mileage may differ. Tanaats 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you may be referring to his use of "Gods" (plural). Since he's totally deceived everyone for years by deliberately giving the impression that there is some big deal to "mantra selection", I'm not too worried about whether he used the plural or not. Tanaats 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

His own teacher gave out mantras based on which deity people normally worshiped, according to what I have read (same website by Paul Mason). And the only thing he's ever made a big deal out of is that "om" isn't suitable for householders and never suitable for women, which is straight from his teacher, according to Paul Mason's website.Sparaig 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the same thing about Guru Dev's method of mantra selection. So MMY isn't teaching/doing what Guru Dev dtaught/did. I'm not sure why you bring that up, actually.

Bu- bu- bu- but, we both just agreed that SBS discouraged women from using OM, so MMY IS teching/doing what Gurudev did. I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise from what you just said. And given that Westerners don't have personal Hindu deities, how could MMY possibly create a mantra-selection technique based on that critereon for Westerners, without first converting them to Hinduism?Sparaig 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your first sentence. As for the second, I quite agree that it was MMY who "created" the method of mantra selection. That's my whole assertion, that MMY created the whole thing out of whole cloth rather than "receiving" it from Guru Dev as he claims. Tanaats 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MMY often uses terms like "direct inspiration [from his guru]" to describe how he came to decide to teach. I don't know that this means that his guru *told* him to teach, or that he only had a dream or vision or intution that this is what his guru wanted him to do. As for mantra selection, age is certainly one traditional way in which mantras are selected--an abreviated form of jyotish.Sparaig 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the TMO has for decades made a "big deal" about how the "proper" mantra must be "selected" for each individual because otherwise the "sound" used in meditation might not be "life supporting" as one's mind settles towards the bottom of the bubble chart (well, they don't say "bottom of the bubble chart":) ), and that only a teacher trained by MMY is qualified to do this selection. It all comes across as if the TM teacher were privy to esoteric secrets. The TMO certainly doesn't want the public to know that there is actually only a tiny list of mantras, and that mantras are "selected" according to a person's age, and that the whole thing is learned in literally a matter of seconds. Tanaats 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Marketing issues are importnt, certainly. Sparaig 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "marketing issue" is my "wholesale deception". I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Tanaats 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that what *I* was told by my TM teacher (and what I heard from all other TM teachers at that time) in 1973, is that mantra-selection is a simple, mechanical process based on the information given in the application form. The application form asked for name, age, sex, occupation, and any health problems I might have been having. Oh yeah, and address and telephone number. There's not that many different "simple, mechanical" selection methods that could be devised from that information, especially "traditional ones." Would people be more comfortable if simple, mechanical, numerology or astrology were used for mantra-selection (as is the case with Chopra's method of mantra selection via computer)?Sparaig 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

They would never have told a raw recruit that. It is indeed a "simple mechanical" process. I was taught my mantras and how to select a mantra by MMY in person at Fiuggi Fonte TTC. The selection process he taught me was based purely on age. And selection based on age is just as ridiculous as would be selection based on numerology or astrology. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one too. Tanaats 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you respect, as you seem to, the information that Pual Mason provides then you might be interested in his very interesting page about Guru Dev. Some quotes:

• One unique principle of the great sage that distinguishes him completely from other living saints of today is that he does not accept money as gift from his visitors or disciples.

• According to tradition only a brahmana (brahmin) can become a sannyasi (swami), and only a sannyasi can be a guru and take disciples. In a scarce Hindi book entitled 'Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita', Guru Dev is quoted upholding this view.

• On account of his varna (caste), Brahmachari Mahesh could never have hoped to succeed his master nor could he ever become a guru himself despite well over a decade of service. Tanaats 06:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a good friend, Anoop Chandola learned to meditate from Swami Shatananda Saraswati, named in the will of Swami Brahmanda Saraswati to be his successor as Shankaracharya. Professor Chandola asked his meditation teacher "What about this Maharishi who is with the Beatles? Is he legitimate?" The Shankaracharya laughed and replied "Let me put it to you this way, he would be my choice as my successor except that they won't allow it due to the caste laws" (personal conversation). BTW, if you examine how MMY has set up his organization, one doesn't pay merely for meditation instruction, but for a lifetime followup program. Further, MMY tries very hard to avoid giving guru-like advice and doesn't accept personal disciples in the sanyasin sense of the word. He created a western-style organization to avoid this issue, and credits his teacher wth all his inspiration, both when TM teachers teach TM, and at the end of every single public talk he has ever given, as far as I know. Sparaig 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "Shankaracharya" wars... Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati told Robert Kropinsky this:

He stated that his Master had left a will which clearly stated the names of those individuals who were to assume the title and responsibilities of Shankaracharya after his death. After the murder of his Master, the next in line was Shantinand. He said Mahesh immediately had him moved into the ashram to assume authority. Then, [Mahesh] used [Shantinand's] name after leaving India, to show that he taught under the authority of Shankaracharya.

MMY didn't leave India until 5 years after his guru died.Sparaig 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, he (Swaroopanand) said he had been given the title of Shankaracharya of Dwarka Math and travelled extensively throughout India preaching. He recalled that Shantinand did not have the proper training or credentials to hold the title of Shankaracharya, and eventually, after proving himself unfit to hold the title, the same learned pundits who had elected Brahmananda Saraswati to the throne asked Swaroopanand to take the title and responsibilities of the Jyotir Math ashram, until such time as another qualified person could be appointed. He agreed, and was given initiation as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math.[22].

Swaroopananda didn't get named to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath until about 20-25 years later.Sparaig 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So "the same learned pundits who had elected Brahmananda Saraswati to the throne asked Swaroopanand to take the title and responsibilities of the Jyotir Math ashram." Once more we'll probably have to agree to disagree. You stick with your Shankaracharya and I'll stick with mine, he who was the "legal" Shankaracharya according to Hindu "law" at the time he talked to Kropinsky. (Of course Kropinsky had previously sued the TMO so that probably makes him unrealible as source.) Tanaats 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You could always ask Annoop Chandola, whose uncle was part of the committee that originally named Swami Brahmanda Saraswati to the post of Shankaracharya 65 years ago, just how much politics was involved in the succession wars over the past 50 years. It is STILL on-going, you know. Swaroopananda got a court order to block Vasudevananda from the Ashram and when Vasudevananda returned, he says he found Ashram artifacts missing. He had a court issue an arrest warrant for Swaroopananda, which was later blocked. In the meantime, Swaroopananda retaliated with his own court order, and his followers attempted to enter the ashram by force in order to deliver it. The police were called to restore order and registered a complaint against Swaroopananda and his followers on behalf of Vasudevananda "accusing Swami Sswaroopananda and his followers of creating disturbance at his camp and assaulting his devotees."Sparaig 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the above citations are all from LAST YEAR. The controversy is on-ongoing and will likely continue indefinitely. At some point Swaroopananda will die, and Vasudevananda, being younger, will likely survive him, and any successor picked by Swaroopananda or the committee will necessarily be at least one generation removed from SBS, making Vasudevananda's claim as solid as anyone else's, since he was the hand-picked successor of Shantananda, who was the successor named in SBS's will from 65 years ago. Reminds me of the Pope Wars in Italy, actually.Sparaig 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sparaig would you be willing to only discuss issues on this talk page that pertain to the article and take other disucssions elsewhere? I ask because the talk page is quite vast and well... from my perspecitive this really isn't the place for stuff that doesn't fit in with the article. Sethie 20:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dang... I said I would shut up and then I didn't! Shutting up again... Tanaats 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tanaats and Sparaig -- I like Tanaats's point about agreeing to disagree. It seems like the Talk page has morphed into Alt.Meditation.Transcendental. We really need to be careful to avoid this kind of personal debate on the Talk page. It's important to stay focused on the article. At this point, it's not clear how the debate directly relates to the article. It began as a comment on the Breaking Away section. And at this point we're pretty much in agreement about changes that need to be made to that section.

We've made a lot of progress recently in improving the articles related to Maharishi, but a lot of work remains to be done. We won't accomplish that if we get off track.TimidGuy 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm going to shut up, except for issues such as "dhyana" that are substantive because it is about what belongs in the article and what doesn't.Tanaats 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the proposed new sentences, using the sources we discussed:

Maharishi has said that Transcendental Consciousness is experienced via dhyana, a Sanskrit term which he equates with Transcendental Meditation.[23] While dhyana is often characterized as involving concentraton or contemplation, Transcendental Meditation instead makes use of the "natural, expansive response of the mind." Maharishi says that concentration is a mistranslation of dhyana and that meditation that uses concentration results in a failure to transcend.[24]

Should I go ahead and add them?TimidGuy 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! Tanaats 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!TimidGuy 22:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add "distinguishing" feature of this technique in the lead paragraph, which was previously deleted. Transcendental Meditation is known to be one of very few, (if there are other) practices where no concentration or contemplation is involved. This is a prominent enough aspect of the technique to warrant inclusion, to my mind.

Purple Iris 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Sfacets had deleted the word "distinguishing," but I feel it's an appropriate word for the reason you give.

And nice to see you back here again.TimidGuy 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno'. My MMY quote about rogue teachers is missing (though I can't find where in History this happened). Presumably it is gone because of questions as to it's sourcing.

So I think we need to discuss the subject of "sourcing". To be completely fair, can "distinguishing" be sourced? As a matter of fact, for example, can these two passages be sourced?:

A feature of this meditation program is its lack of effort, as contrasted with techniques involving concentration, or those involving contemplation or active thinking. The TM technique involves an effortless repetition of a specific sound, called a mantra. This effortless repetition, practised according to specific guidelines...

...including celebrities such as the Beatles, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, film director David Lynch, Scottish musician Donovan, and actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine.

Tanaats 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be Timidguy, removing it here [25] Sethie 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I guess I still have to learn how to read History properly. Tanaats 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To perhaps beat this into the ground, I just happened to notice that half of the Maharishi Sthapatya Veda is based on a press conference. So let's indeed discuss this whole thing. Tanaats 03:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The celebrities who practice TM can easily be sourced. Would be happy to see Deepak cut. I think it'll be possible to find a source for the points about the technique. I'll mark it with the citation tag, and we can work on it.

The Sthapatya Veda material was largely written by someone opposed to TM (it originally had a negative anti-Christian slant). It should be easy to find a source. I'll mark it with a citation tag.

Some of the press conferences are available online via streaming video or audio. If these particular press conferences are available, then I think this is a proper souce for the passages in question (including the one I deleted).

I agree that we need to scrutinize all of the sources. It's good you're focusing on this.TimidGuy 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to delete the German study from the article. The guideline

17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above paragraph, I find I have a number of questions. I have divided them into seperate subsections so you can address them, individually.Sethie 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Is it true that to qualify for WP:RS, something MUST be "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals?"

Yes, when something is presented as a scientific study, I believe the guideline is clear that this is what's expected.TimidGuy 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your interpretation. Now can you please show me where it says IT MUST BE SO! And can you please show me where the German study claims to be a study?Sethie 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the guideline is clear. And, yes, this is presented in the TM article as being a study: "A study funded by the German government found that over 75% of long term meditators experienced adverse health and psychological effects as a result of TM." I feel that this is the heart of the matter.TimidGuy 12:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that you believe that. And it is also true that I asked you to show me where in the guidelines it says that it must be so, and you responded by repeating, "I think it is so." So I ask again, where does the guidelines say that it MUST be this way?Sethie 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, I propose we remove EVERY quote of MMY, as well as every quote from the TM website, as I do not think ANY of these statements or books meet the criteria you are suggesting!

Are you taking the position that if the US goverment conducted a study and published it's results on their own, not in a scholary journal, you believe it is in line with wiki policy to try and block it's inclusion? Sethie 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Retracted?"

Is it true that the study was "retracted by the German goverment as being scientifically flawed?" or is that your interpretation of the events? What actually happened?Sethie 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The court ordered that it be retracted. An appellate court overturned the retraction order, saying the lower court didn't have that authority. But the appellate court did not dispute the finding of the lower court that the study was scientifically flawed and explicitly stated:

"The federal government has not asserted a general or in any event significant, frequent or determinable causal relationship between membership in the TM movement and the appearance of mental disorders." (7C2-87EU00004, page 7)TimidGuy 20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether "scientifically flawed" appears in the source. Otherwise it enough to say "the appellate court did not dispute the finding of the lower court and stated:". (I think that "explicitly" is overkill.) Tanaats 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am all for facts. Let's report it was retracted. And then let's report that a higher court said the lower court did not have the authority! Sethie 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The lower court said that the studies were not based on a scientific sampling and that they were obviously biased. The appellate court didn't dispute that. To my mind, the fact that the study didn't receive scientific scrutiny entailed in peer-reviewed scientific publication, and the determination of the lower court that it was biased and not properly conducted suggests that this isn't the kind of evidence that Wikipedia requires.

Here's a quote from

wp:5: "[NPOV] means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." Is a scientific study authoritative if it hasn't been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal and if a court determines that it wasn't based on a scientific sampling and was obviously biased.TimidGuy

22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me a single non-authoritative source that has been cited.Sethie 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a study purporting to show adverse effects as a result of TM isn't an authoritative source if, as the guidelines say, it's not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.TimidGuy 12:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please notice that I asked you to show me a single non-authoritative source, and you responded by pointing to something that is not being used as a source, something that is not cited!

And so I ask again, please point to a SINGLE citation in this article which is a "non-authoritative source," and this time, please actually indicate something that is being used as a source! Sethie 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The study is presented in the article as evidence of adverse effects. The relevant guideline is this.[26] To my mind, it isn't useful to quibble about "sources."TimidGuy 16:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not true! The study is NOT presented in the article! Not a single citation to the actual study is presented. Other people's thoughts about the study are shown. So, for the 4th or 5th time, please show me a single citation in the article that does not meet WP:RS_Scholarship.

And as for not wanting to "quibble" over sources... then may I suggest writing in a blog? The foundation of wikipedia is sources.Sethie 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

German study unavailable

It is true that the actual German study is cited? Or are there citations ABOUT the German study, all of which DO meet WP:V? 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From

wp:v

"In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly."

I guess that I don't exactly know what they mean by that. In principle someone could find the original study, verify that it was published by a credible source, and verify that it was translated correctly (either by translating it themselves or by hiring someone to do it). Couldn't they? Tanaats 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what? They can verify the origonal sources, since they are cited IN the article! You are confusing the Study and people reporting on the study. We use citations that report on the study.

By your own logic, we must remove what the German Court said about about study, because the study isn't available? WIKIPEDIA IS FULL OF SOURCES commenting on book, studies, etc. Please show me where in wikipedia policy it says that "If a WP:V, WP:RS source comments on a study, the origonal study MUST be provided to use that source."Sethie 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

German translations

I am confused by your statement "Wikipedia preffers sources in English." I understand the idea, I am confused why you are raising it here. Can you show me any place that we are using a translation of anything German in the article?

Wikipedia is referencing a German study.

Yeah, so let me try asking again.

Can you show me a non-English Source anywhere in the current Wiki article? Sethie 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand we are using a translation provided by David Ormes, which I will note as un-sourced translation. Sethie 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

David didn't do the translation. Legal counsel paid for a certified translation. What's the source of the translation of the study?TimidGuy 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what, thanks for the OR. Interesting information and doesn't help us here.Sethie 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to "Researcher David Orme-Johnson, who has authored over 100 studies related to Transcendental Meditation (most of them peer-reviewed)"... This is cited, but the source is actually O-J talking about himself. I would prefer something like "Researcher David Orme-Johnson states that he has authored over 100 studies related to Transcendental Meditation (most of them peer-reviewed). He further states..." Tanaats 22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you change that. But note that he lists all of his studies on his web site.[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Anyone could verify this by looking at any index of scientific literature.TimidGuy 12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but IMO the citation that is actully given only supports "He states". Thanks! I've made the edit. Tanaats 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he has any studies on the TM movement. My hunch is they are all on the technique with some on the Sidhi program. Here is a page where the movement calls the basic meditation "The TM Technique" [[34]], wheras the "TM program" includes advanced courses and related programs."Sethie 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the statement "[The] Transcendental Mediation organization is the opposite because it submits its theories to the rigors of scientific testing.” is patently misleading. The TMO only submits a subset of its theories to scientific testing. But he did say that. Tanaats 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the quote I mentioned above. Yes, I agree. Tanaats 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sadly I am not allowed to correct Dr. Orme's misinformation, since it is in a direct quote and well. On the other hand, it is nice to catch him with his pants down, with a direct quote where he thinks he is helping the organization! Sethie 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: "The TM program" consists of practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique 2x daily. [35] The TM-Sidhis program consists of practicing the TM technique plus the TM-Sidhis techniques 2x daily. There are situations when you are encouraged to practice the TM technique or the TM and TM-SIdhis techniques MORE than twice daily, but those are listed under "advanced programs." And Orme-Johnson has published plenty of studies on the effects of the TM-technique, and on the effects of the TM program, e.g.:

Neuroreport. 2006 Aug 21;17(12):1359-63. Links

Neuroimaging of meditation's effect on brain reactivity to pain.

Orme-Johnson DW, Schneider RH, Son YD, Nidich S, Cho ZH.

Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa, USA. [email protected]

Some meditation techniques reduce pain, but there have been no studies on how meditation affects the brain's response to pain. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the response to thermally induced pain applied outside the meditation period found that long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique showed 40-50% fewer voxels responding to pain in the thalamus and total brain than in healthy matched controls interested in learning the technique. After the controls learned the technique and practiced it for 5 months, their response decreased by 40-50% in the thalamus, prefrontal cortex, total brain, and marginally in the anterior cingulate cortex. The results suggest that the Transcendental Meditation technique longitudinally reduces the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain.

adding a personal dig: Tannats was trained as a TM teacher. He knows the terminology better than I do, and yet he didn't bother to correct your misconceptions. Why is that, I wonder...Sparaig 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was "in", the use of the word "Program" wasn't introduced until "sidha's" began returning from Switzerland. They would go off in secret and "do their program". I don't recall the TM technique being called the "TM program" while I was in, so I wasn't current on the marketing spin. And, FWIW, TimidGuy who I understand is a professor at MUM didn't correct Sethie either, so IMO you are applying a bit of a double standard anyway. Tanaats 18:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why use "professor" with the quotes, are are you now dragging TimidGuy into this? BTW, I recall it being "TM program" and "TM technique" even 30 years ago or so, though perhaps the legal department wasn't quite as strict as it is now.Sparaig 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize about the quotes. I meant to italicize the word "professor". Tanaats 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that is the second time you have insulted me. Can you tolerate having a discussion, however heated it gets, without resorting to insult? Tanaats 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. I've had a bad few days and was taking it out here, sorry. Sparaig 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very good of you. And I hope things improve for you. Tanaats 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sethie and Tanaats -- thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your comments.

I'm just really curious what Wikipedia's standards of evidence are. I'd really like to explore the issue of the German study further, possibly starting with a Request for Comment. I feel like the two key guidelines that apply are

12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm not sure why you are repeating the same arguements you presented above?

I am always open to comments from outsiders. In fact I LOVE THEM. The more editors that show up at this article the better it becomes.

I am unclear why you wish to jump to an RFC so quickly? We have been dialogueing on this issue for less then 2 days. Sethie 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would force us to clearly state our ponts of view. And I believe it would help focus on the heart of the matter. Otherwise it seems like we'll spend a lot of time quibbling, and I don't really have time for that. Unfortunately, I have work to do. : ( TimidGuy 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you have work to do! I enjoy our dialogues. If I win the lottery I'll give you enough so you can spend more time here! :)

Well, I beleive God is in the details.

I have pointed out numerous flaws with your reason for wishing to take out "the German Study" (the main flaw I have tried to point out is that we CANNOT take it out, since it is in not in the article!). I welcome outside input. And I am noticing that you have not been able to address any of the direct questions I have posed to you. If you do an RfC I promise to ask these EXACT same questions again, and my hunch is, others will answer them.Sethie 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added an RfC section here. As soon as you put in your arguments, I'll post a notice on the RfC page.TimidGuy 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the new passage "Since one of the hallmarks of the Transcendental Meditation program is carefully guided personal instruction based on the individual experiences of the student, the Natural Stress Relief CD's approach of a sending a CD which is not personalized to the student, makes it something very different", this strikes me as being

.

And "Teachers of the Transcendental Meditation technique have replied that offering this valuable knowledge to everyone has been a long standing commitment of the organization and that they continue to work very hard at finding funding sources. This will not only allow everyone who wants to learn the program, the opportunity to learn, but will also ensure that the organization will be available to offer the lifetime follow up programs at no extra charge". Strikes me as even more OR.

I think that these new additions should be deleted.

Otherwise I would love to put my own OR in.  :) Tanaats 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to put in my OR too!!! :)

Yeah, I removed it. Sethie 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a dispute about whether to use as evidence for adverse effects three studies by a German federal ministry.16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Information from three 1980 studies by a German federal ministry is included in the article as evidence of adverse effects of Transcendental Meditation. These studies weren't published in a scientific journal and weren't peer-reviewed. On December 18th, 1985, the Administrative Court of Appeals for the State of North-Rhine Westphalia, docket No. 5 A 1125/84, concluded that the studies were "not based on a scientific sampling" and were "obviously biased." More detail at [36]. The Wikipedia pillars
  wp:rs specifies that "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." This study didn't receive adequate review and was found to be flawed by a German court. I believe it should not be included as evidence in the article.TimidGuy
  16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• (1)
  WP:RS says "Items that fit this criteria can always be considered reliable", it doesn't say that items that don't fit those criteria are always not reliable. (3) The opinion of a judge who has no scientific training has importance in law, but has no importance whatever in determining whether a study is actually flawed from a scientific point of view. (4) The "significance" of the study is more than adequately counterpointed by the rather huge paragraph below it, giving NPOV and allowing the reader to make their own determinations. Tanaats
  18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize to those who came here via Rfc. After 2 days of light discussion Timidguy decided he “did not have time” to “quibble” with me over the objections I raised to his proposal. I personally see this as a misuse of the RfC processe. With that said, I will now raise the same objections I raised with him:

• • The crux of the matter- which Timidguy has avoided answering. It is true that the actual German study is cited? Or are there citations ABOUT the German study, all of which DO meet WP:V, WP:RS? PLEASE SHOW ME A SINGLE non WP:RS, WP:V SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE, RIGHT NOW.

• • Is it true that we cannot cite WP:V, WP:RS materials if they discuss something published in a non-peer-reviewed, scientific journal? So, if Time magazine talks about this study, we can’t cite Time magazine? huh?

• • If something is proven wrong (which the German study has not been, it has been rebuked by one court) are we not allowed to mention it?

• • Is it true the study is used "as evidence" in this article, or is it merely listed under a section called "Alledged Harmful Effects of TM?"

• • Is it true that to qualify for WP:RS, something MUST be "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals?" That if it isn't we CANNOT mention it? I say this position is a totally novel interpretation of wiki policies.

• Wikipedia is about reporting on facts, not judging the facts. The facts in this matter are clear- the German Government did a study, and reached conclusions. The TM movement sued the government. The Court said, XYZ about the study. These are the facts, all of which reported from WP:RS and WP:V sources, all of which I would like to see reported. To NOT include mention of this study, for the reasons Timidguy has listed is pure and simple OR. Timidguy on his own has decided that the study is faulty and bad. He has decided that the German Court “is right,” and he wants us to carry out the sentence of his judgment: NOT EVEN MENTION the fact that this study happened. I ask you, wiki community to say a strong NO! to this attempt of one wiki editor to be the arbitor of truth, and to say yes to letting sources do the talking, not the opinions of editors. Sethie 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This seems quite clear ....Since this is reported as a "biased study" without a basis in a "scientific sampling", using this study as an argument for evidence either for or against Transcendental Meditation would provide a very weak if non-existent argument.Thank you for researching and providing this clarification.(````)

Ok, we have a comment from a TM practioner. Let's wait for a comment from a knowledgable neutral party. Hell, Littleolive oil could be right, but I'd like to hear some knowledgable neutral opinions.

BTW, I do not think a the opinion of a judge has any scientific validity one way or another. Tanaats 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is such an open and shut case Olive Oil and Timidguy. Here are the facts of the matter:

~The German Government via this study ALLEDGED that TM had negative effects.

~A Court said, hey, you guys made some mistakes! Some big mistakes.

End of story.

The rest is your OR and your commentary. Save it for a blog. The study, in this article is not used as an "arguement against TM." We have reported a fact- the Government said XYZ. And look at the section it is under "ALLEDGED Harmful Effects of TM."

Are you argueing that we should HIDE the fact that these allegations were made? If so, please just clearly state that- say, "Hey since the courts said it was wrong, we should HIDE IT, COVER IT UP!"

All I am asking for is a neutral reporting of the facts. What is it you are after? Sethie 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is another opinion. I know what yours is. I want to know whether experienced, neutral Wikipedians feel that this problematic study is the sort of evidence that should be introduced in an article in support of a controversial point.TimidGuy 12:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia .... Is this a discussion/talk page? I thought this was a discussion and that Timid Guy was asking for discussion and or comments on the usefulness of the study. I commented, from my view viewpoint, of course, on its usefulness either for or against TM ...... How useful is it in an encylopedic format such as this? ...... As I said I thought this was a discussion page,but perhaps I have misunderstood the format(````)

Hey there Olive Oil... :) I like the name.

Yeah this is the disucssion page, and my objection below is an objection to an actual wikipedia process, an RfC, not to anyone posting their comments.

I am argueing that what objection are essentially

WP:OR Origonal Research. I am saying that for you or me to evaluate the allegations is OR, and am merely saying, let's report on the FACTS, in this case, that the allegations were made and that the court responded by saying xyz. P.s. to sign you use the "~" not the "`"Sethie

22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, I think we should consider mediation at some point. You keep objecting to the way that I use the talk page and citing Original Research, but I believe I'm using the Talk page as intended.TimidGuy 12:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think meditation would be helpful I am open to it. The moment you step away from a cited fact in a WP:RS source, I will cry OR, and I hope you do the same of me. And I am happy to do and say the same with a thried party watching. Sethie 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry, forgot to hit shift and didn't catch it in preview page.. sorry ... many thanks for welcome (olive 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I believe your movement to do an RfC at this time violates the Wikipedia guidelines for RfC "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved."

Two days of LIGHT dialogue does not constitute an attempt to work towards a resolution for me. Please engate in further dialogue FIRST- then ask for a RfC- I propose we work on this issue for at least another week before engaging in a formel RfC.

If you wish to ask others to drop by at this point, I wholeheartidly support that. And I support wiki guidelines, hence I oppose an RfC at this point. Sethie 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, you hadn't made any arguments against the central point other than to quibble about sources (for example, arguing that the German study isn't in the article), so I went ahead with an RfC. And now you're indicating that you'd like to quibble for another week. Fine.

Please, everyone read the instructions for

WP:RFC, and we'll do our best to follow the procedure next time. Consider this a trial run. Each party to the dispute should make a statement in the Statement section. And when you make a comment in the Comments section, begin with an asterisk. I think that the idea is that the parties who make statements don't then make Comments. And the example doesn't show discussion of the comments.TimidGuy

13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Time and time again I have asked for a neutral presentation of facts, free of interpretation, that's all nothing else. And you are asking for a SUPPRESSION of facts.

I will ask the same pointed, direct questions to those who come and participate here that you were unwilling or unable to answer.

I have not made any arguement towards your central point, because your central point has no water. I have undercut your central point and you have ignored these challenges and kept repeating your central point over and over. Repitition does not make a thing so!Sethie 13:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't yet posted the RfC invitation. I'd suggest that in preparation for our future RfC you rework your Statement so that it's more concise and uses declarative sentences rather than questions. Also, I believe it should be a single paragraph. Note that in the example the Statements are brief, and that when Admin Will Beback commented in another thread he indicated the Statements should be brief. Since we're going to try again, I propose that I change the heading of the current RfC, maybe with a strikethrough or something, to indicate it's been aborted.TimidGuy 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I misunderstood. When you said trial run I thought you meant you were going to go ahead and do it anyway. I will sit with your suggestions, for shortnes, as for questions I doubt I will change my approach. I support a strikethrough.... and I will striktrough my inital sentence, :) once I see how you do a strikethrough and then I can copy it! Sethie 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By "trial run" I meant a sort of unofficial practice.TimidGuy 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Olive Oil,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I had rough first few days on WP a couple of weeks ago, and you might have a few rough days too until you get it all figured out. You might start by reading the

.

And to sign your postings you put in 4 tildes in a row. When you save the page this is expanded by the Wiki software into your username and the time of day. And it's always a good idea to hit the Preview button amd make sure your entry looks like you want it to and says what you want it to, before saving the page.

Good luck. Tanaats 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)