Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

keeping the teaching pure

We have text on the TM movement article on keeping the technique pure [1]. This content since it references the technique seems appropriate here as well. Any thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Seems like an appropriate addition for the TM Teacher section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok... I'll add the appropriate parts.(olive (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Questionable source

I have obtained the book "Powers of the Mind" by Adam Smith and it is not a proper source in my opinion. It is the author's musings about his first hand experiences with a myriad of New Age philosophies and techniques including I Ching, Zen, Bhuddist meditation, bio feeback, yoga and at least a dozen others (including TM). Also, the source is being misrepresented in the article. For example:

• WP article says: TM meditators are instructed to keep their mantra secret
  • Smith book says: "Never", Buzz said, "tell anybody your mantram. [sic] That will ruin the whole effect." (that's all it says about secret mantras)
• WP article says: Author Adam Smith writes that the mantra secrecy may be due to concerns that a meditator will share their mantra with friends in order to avoid paying the tuition fee
  • Smith book says: Buzz said...... "Every once in a while, somebody goes through TM, and then a friend gets interested, and they tell the friend the mantram, [sic] just to save the initiation fee"

These additions (text and source) were added by a now banned user [2] in Janaury 2010. Wherever possible, I am going to replace this source with other sources of higher quality such as scholarly books.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove text and source?

I would like to remove the following text:

• "One Australian TM teacher reported that he had personally initiated more than 20,000 people in a thirty year period."

The source does not ID this person as a TM teacher and therefore the current text is misleading and not relevant to this article. In a section devoted to Bhudist meditation the article says:

• [But Michael Rowland, a meditation teacher of more than 30 years, says that while meditation has moved into the mainstream, our understanding of the practice is murky. "A lot of things are called meditation that aren't - relaxation, visualisation, listening to music, people trying to stop their minds thinking," says Rowland, who has taught at least 20,000 people. "But meditation has quite a different goal; it's got higher aspirations than just relaxing. It's about bliss and ecstasy and expanding your capacity for extrasensory perception. Rowland became interested in Eastern medicine and culture through his father - who was born in India - at age 12. Meditation, he says, is a habit that benefits every part of his life. "Meditation is a warrior's art; it's not a peace and love art. You end up with peace and love but it takes a lot of discipline."]

Any objections to the removal of this content?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication that the mediation form is TM so the text should go.(olive (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

I've removed it and replaced it with this (similar) text that is accurate and from a reliable source:

• Jerry Jarvis, one of the first TM teachers in the U.S. "has personally instructed 5,000 people".--William Jefferson, The Story of The Maharishi page 74-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Over the past few weeks I've spent some time organizing the article and assembling various sections in a reader friendly way, while adding new content and reliable sources at the same time. Now I'd like to take a look at the lead and make sure that it accurately summarizes the article per WP:LEAD and give due weight to each appropriate section per WP:UNDUE. I'm going to do an analysis of the size of each section and then create a brief summary of each and make sure they each section is properly represented in the lead. I'll be working on this in my sandbox please let me know if you have an input or want to discuss my proposed changes. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• • After analyzing the current lead I have the following observations:
• 23% of the lead is devoted to historical information about the TM movement, that is not contained in the article and should be removed since there is a wiki link to the Transcendental Meditation article where that content is located.
• 25% of the lead is devoted to Research but only 1.5% of the article discusses Research. This violates WP:UNDUE and needs to be rectified.
• There is nothing in the lead about Advanced Courses, Institutional programs and Marketing... so an appropriate sized summary of those topics should be added. I'm going to continue working on this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed summaries to be added to the lead:

• • Advanced Courses (summary)
• Advanced courses and activities that supplement the TM technique include group meditations, advanced lectures, weekend Residence Courses and series of meditative techniques called the TM-Sidhi program.

• • Institutional programs (summary)
• Beginning in 1965 the TM technique has been incorporated into many institutional settings including schools, universities and corporations as well as social programs aimed at veterans, prison inmates and the homeless. By the time the TM technique and the Science of Creative Intelligence was deemed a religious activity as taught in two New Jersey schools in 1977, fourteen states had already encouraged the use of the TM technique in their schools and it was being taught at 50 universities. After a period of relative dormancy the TM technique began to be utilized again in educational settings and since 1994 dozens of schools, universities, prisons and other social programs in the U.S. and around the world have incorporated the technique into their program.

• • Marketing (summary)
• The public presentation of the TM technique has varied over its 50 year history. Some authors have praised its use of the mass media in effectively propagating the technique globally, while critics argue that the TM technique has propagandized it celebrity status and scientific endorsements.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My edits today:

• I have organized the lead to reflect the order of the topics as they appear in the body of the article and moved off topic content to the bottom (4th paragraph).
• I have added new content that summarizes the Advanced courses, Institutional programs and Marketing sections of the article which comprise 37% of the article and were heretofore ignored.

What remains to be done is a)move inappropriate content (the fourth paragraph) out of the lead b) reduce the section on Research which currently violates WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Today I have removed the content below from the lead. It does not summarize any content from the body of this article and instead is info borrowed from the leads of other related articles ie MMY, TM, History of TM and TM movement.

• The technique was introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1914–2008). He taught his meditation technique in a series of world tours beginning in 1957. From the late 1960s through the mid 1970s, both the Maharishi and TM received significant public attention in the USA, especially among the student population. During this period, a million people learned the technique, including well-known public figures. Worldwide, as many as six to ten million people are reported to be practitioners of the TM technique. Notable practitioners include The Beatles, David Lynch, Mike Love, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow. The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of the practices recommended in the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Transcendental Meditation is a registered trademark of the Maharishi Foundation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• While I generally like to see an article organized around the way in which the body of an article is organized, in this case the result seemed to be a lead that didn't flow very well, so I adjusted it. This is just my opinion so if others prefer another organization please feel free to revert me. Thanks for the huge amount of work Kbob.(olive (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC))
  • Your changes are good and improve the lead without creating any undue weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Neutrality tag

At present I do not see an neutrality issues, so I am removing the tag. If anyone disagrees they should feel free to replace the tag and giving a list of reasons here so that we can address them. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've since replace the tag after receiving feedback from an uninvolved editor who has been kind enough to review the article.(see below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source?

Current article says:

• Rounding is said to produce "unstressing", which author Michel Cazenave describes as a release of tension in which deep relaxation may be accompanied by physical and emotional effects, including insomnia, anxiety, headaches and spontaneous imagery.[12]

Sources says:

• This seems to be similar to the process called 'unstressing' in transcendental meditation (Wallace et all., 1971). The meditative state of transcendental meditation may combine effortless relaxation with spontaneous imagery and emotion. Teachers of transcendental meditation tell their students not to be alarmed by any thought that comes to mind, but to notice it as they would any passing thought and then attend once again to the mantra. In a way it resembles Freud's notion of catharsis during free association. A similar state of mind is described by a Zen monk: 'Worldly ideas or irrelevant thoughts may pass through the mind during meditation. I simply wait and allow these things to go through my mind until the naturally disappear.'"

The source does not mention anything about rounding. Nor does it say that TM can result in "physical effects", or creates "insomina, anxiety, headaches". I think the text needs to be rewritten and moved to the Practice section. Also, if I find a book that says that TM relieves insomnia or anxiety can I put in the article? No, I can't per WP:MEDRS. So why should text be allowed that says TM creates insomnia or anxiety just because a random author says so? Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Health issues must fall under the umbrella of MEDRS. That's the standard for Wikipedia and for RS/MEDRS.

The content must be supported by the source if its not it must be rewritten. (olive (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC))

I have revised the text so that it is accurate per the source and removed the medical claims per MEDRS. I then moved the revised version of the text to the Practice section. My edit can be seen here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone issues

This article has some major tone problems-- several sections sound like advertising for the organization, not something written by an outsider. It's not made clear that TM is an organization, religious or otherwise; the article references "the Maharishi" constantly but never explains who he/she is; much of the article reads like a list of statements about TM, and has no narrative or structure. For example, the "Course Description", "Course Fees", and "Advanced Courses" really have no place in an encyclopedia article and should be left to the organization's website.

Another example: the "Mantras" section is just a list of what different people h. ave said about it. This is totally unnecessary, as most of them seem to agree with each other for the most part. Why not say, "the mantras used are generally chosen for their sounds, and the meanings are considered to be largely unimportant. (two or three references)"? Do we really have to pull in all these quotes?

The "Institutional Programs" section is almost as bad-- the number of examples far outweighs their contribution to the reader's understanding of the subject. Couldn't we point out some general trends and leave the rest as references, or as a separate article? The "Characterizations" section needs similar treatment. I'm not an expert in the topic so I won't try to judge which bits of information are more illustrative, but most parts of the article need some pruning & cleanup. Seems like there are several people actively working on this article, so it shouldn't take you guys too long. 169.237.142.223 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks these are good thoughts on this article. I'll try and lay them out in point form and see what we have. Its great to have input from someone with no involvement.

• sections sound like advertising:

Could you point out specitifically which sections strike you that way. I'm working through the article right now trying to adjust any advert sounding content, and its invaluablwe to have outside input.

• Its not clear that TM is an organization.

The blue link Transcendental Meditation in the opening sentence links to the TM article which discusses both TM as a technique and TM as the name of an organization. This article is specifically about the technique. Does that take care of your concern.

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I'll add something on this... good point I actually thought there was something in the lead on the Maharishi.(16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

• Another example: the "Mantras" section is just a list of what different people h. ave said about it. This is totally unnecessary, as most of them seem to agree with each other for the most part. Why not say, "the mantras used are generally chosen for their sounds, and the meanings are considered to be largely unimportant. (two or three references)"? Do we really have to pull in all these quotes?

Good point in my opinion. Another uninvolved editor had concerns about the article length, and implied it wasn't easy to get through.

• The "Institutional Programs" section is almost as bad-- the number of examples far outweighs their contribution to the reader's understanding of the subject. Couldn't we point out some general trends and leave the rest as references, or as a separate article? The "Characterizations" section needs similar treatment. I'm not an expert in the topic so I won't try to judge which bits of information are more illustrative, but most parts of the article need some pruning & cleanup

I'd agree. and another editor has made the same kind of point

Thanks for the input.(olive (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

These are good points from an uninvolved editor and it would be good if we could go through them one by one and discuss and make adjustments as needed. As Olive has pointed out the comments are very good, but they are general comments. I am hopeful that the IP will come back and join the discussion on how specific things should be changed. Also User: Arjayay, who has made some good comments and suggestions would also be a welcome addition to the discussion and evolution of this article. I think for starters we are all in agreement that the article could use some pruning. Some content goes on too long and needs to be summarized. Some content is coatrack-ish and needs to be deleted or moved to a more appropriate articles and some could be made into its own article ( the Institutional programs section for example). I look forward to working together as a group to make improvements.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[During an interview with David Frost, George Harrison described TM, saying, "the energy is latent within everybody. It’s there anyway... meditation is a natural process of being able to contact that".] Per comments from others I have removed the preceding sentence, which I had previously placed in the Practice section. After thinking it over it seems to me that the quote is more about the theory of TM rather than the practice. I am storing it here for possible use in another section or another article. If anyone disagrees with its removal they may place it back where it was.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a tag to the top of the article that explains TM technique vs organization and refers them to the TM movement article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Inline attribution

There seems to be a lack of consistency in the way sources are treated in this article. If it’s a newspaper, then rarely is the newspaper mentioned and almost never the name of the reporter or the title of the news article. However, if the source is a book then the author is often attributed by name, and his credentials are often mentioned and even the title of the book is included in the text. What is WP policy on this? Whatever it is it should be applied consistently throughout the article. To illustrate how prolific this tendency is in this article, I have listed them here/below: (We can hat this thread if folks would prefer.)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Inline attributions

List of inline attributions in the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
During an interview with David Frost musician George Harrison described British chess grandmaster Jonathan Rowson, described the practice Laura Tenant a reporter for The Independent described her experience William Jefferson, in The Story of the Maharishi, says According to philosophy professor Jacob Needleman, according to Chryssides and professor of psychiatry, Norman E. Rosenthal.[27][40] The Maharishi explains that A 1972 biography of the Maharishi says that Sociologist William Sims Bainbridge writes Former TM teacher and author Lola Williamson says According to sociologist Roy Wallis, religious scholar J. Gordon Melton and Bainbridge, Author Adam Smith writes Religious Studies scholar George D. Chryssides says In his 1963 book The Science of Being and Art of Living, the Maharishi writes Likewise religious studies scholar, Thomas Forsthoefel writes, Sociologist Stephen J. Hunt and others say In Kerala, India, in 1955, the Maharishi spoke of According to authors Peter Russell and Norman Rosenthal, Lola Williamson says Vishal Mangalwadi says Philosophy of science scholar and former Maharishi International University professor Jonathan Shear, in his book The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, Fred Travis, Professor of Maharishi Vedic Science at Maharishi University of Management, writes in a 2009 article published in the International Journal of Psychophysiology An article in the The Ottawa Citizen gave a Author William Bainbridge quotes from a training bulletin According to author and TM teacher Bob Roth In January 2009, The Guardian reported One ex-teacher said An Australian TM teacher said The Maharishi has said that Skeptic James Randi, however, concluded James Randi followed up According to a follower are said by religious scholars Douglas E. Cowan and David G. Bromley to be The New York Times reported According to the DLF web site According to the school director, According to a 2008 Newsweek article, According to Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute says Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, was quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying The Washington Post reported in 2005 According to the Times of India Psychiatry professor, Norman E. Rosenthal says Cynthia Humes in Gurus In America describes author Michael Phelan describes it as Shear describes the TM technique itself as The Independent reports that Theologian Robert M. Price, writing in the Creation/Evolution Journal (the journal of the National Center for Science Education), compares Skeptic James Randi says Astrophysicist and skeptic Carl Sagan writes Irving Hexham, a professor of religious studies, describes Neurophysiologist Michael Persinger writes Sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge describe biographer Paul Mason suggests In his 1963 book, The Science Of Being and Art Of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi says According to the Maharishi, According to Vimal Patel, a pathologist at Indiana University, ] Girish Varma, a nephew of the Maharishi's who is a Brahmachari and chairman of the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools Group, says According to the Maharishi The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness says Maharishi Mahesh Yogi describes Advocates of TM say In his book The TM Technique, Peter Russell, a teacher of Transcendental Meditation who had spent time with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi says Catholic monk Wayne Teasdale writes in his book The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World’s Religions, Anthony Campbell, author of the book Seven States of Consciousness, writes that A reporter for The Sunday Times says A reporter for The Independent said According to author Stephen Hunt, In the book Cults and New Religious Movements author Roy Wallis characterizes Cardinal Jaime Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, wrote Religion scholar Charles H. Lippy writes Bainbridge found Transcendental Meditation to be Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Orthodox Church describes William Johnston, an Irish Jesuit, says Former Maharishi University of Management Dean of College of Arts and Sciences, James Grant writes Andrew Sullivan, political commentator for The Atlantic and an openly gay Roman Catholic, wrote Martin Gardner, a mathematician, refers to it as "the Hindu cult".[290] In the book Cults and New Religions, Cowan and Bromley write Authors of the book A Reader in New Religious Movements, George D. Chryssides and Margaret Z. Wilkins, write Chryssides goes on to say in his book Exploring New Religions that Psychiatry professor Norman E. Rosenthal, author of Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation, writes According to a 1985 book titled The Future of Religion by sociologists William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, Goldberg said that Bainbridge and Stark also say Sociologist Hank Johnston analysed TM as A 1991 JAMA article found Similar concern has been raised in the 1980 book TM and Cult Mania.[303] by columnist Adam Smith. Yale University architecture professor Keller Easterling compares -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we are inline attributing, the content must be contentious or an opinion. If the content isn't contentious or an opinion then one wonders why its being attributed inline. This seems to me to be the first issue.
• I'd wonder if content has been attributed to make a point, to slant the content. This is a second issue seems to me.
• If we want to make sure that points of view in the sources are are clearly attributed to authors who may have a specific kind of background and backgrounds which may have heavily influenced what they have to say, then we need to make sure that kind of attribution includes sources from multiple POVs- is even handed. This is somewhat like the first point.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but discussion is certainly called for in my opinion.(olive (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC))

All this "attribution" drives me nuts. It also seems to me that attribution is often used to discredit the source. --BwB (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well inline attribution is a way to make sure opinions are not used in articles in Wikipedia's voice, giving them more credence than they deserve. If inline attribution is being used to discredit, even handedness may help create better neutrality. I guess that's one issue under discussion here. (olive (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC))

Plus, there's all the subtext associated with attribution. For example, "Martin Gardner, a mathematician, refers to it as "the Hindu cult"." SUBTEXT: "What the hell does a mathematician know about cults?" Only my opinion, of course. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Olive brings up an important point, that inline attribution lets the reader know who is giving the info and that the info may be the opinion of one person and gives context. So some inline attribution is needed. So citing the author is good, but is it necessary to cite their credentials? The name of their book? Out of the examples above, its the really long ones that concern me the most. You can see policy on this here and here PS I'm still looking for a way to make the above section 'collapsable' without 'hatting' it (ie discussion closed). If anyone can help I'd appreciate it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Reduction in article length

Per the comments by Arajayay that the article is overly long, I'm going to move content here that seems too detailed for this article, making the reading tedious. I'm not attached to anything, so will revert on request or feel free to revert yourself. I also at this point am not adding anything. This is first pass so we can see what the article looks like in a reduced state. All content will be moved here so no content will be lost. (olive (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Reduction: fees section

I've removed content on fees which is more historical in nature and probably pretty tedious to read through for most readers. I 'm storing it here. It its too long for the talk page. I can hat it.

Content removed from Course Fee section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From 1967 to 1968, the fees for instruction in the UK, the US, and Australia were variable, ranging from one-week's salary to a flat fee of $35 for students. In 1975-1976, fees in the US were $125 for adults, $65 for college students and $200 for entire families, with "much lower" fees for the "black community". That year, author John White wrote in his book Everything You Want to Know About TM -- Including How to Do It, "paying a hundred twenty five dollars (the basic fee) for a total of six hours’ instruction is something a lot of people question". Fees rose to $400 for adults and $135 for students in the US and Canada by 1993, and then were increased to $1,000 for adults and $600 for students in 1994. In Britain, the cost of TM was £490 (£290 for students) in 1995. By 2003, fees for adult instruction in the US had risen to $2,500. In Bermuda, where fees had been kept below the international average for many years, a 2003 TM movement directive increased fees from $385 to $2,000, and is thought to be partly responsible for the suspension of TM instruction there. A former instructor criticized the fees saying they excluded ordinary people and made it a technique for the wealthy. A 2004 article in Business Week reported that parents who want their children to learn a relaxation program can pay "upwards of $100 for an hour with a trained therapist or $2,500 for many sessions at a TM Center." In2006, the New York Times noted that the TM "training process involves working with personal instructors over five days at one of about 1,000 Transcendental Meditation centers worldwide, and it costs about $2,500". In January 2009, The Guardian reported that the expensive fees for TM instruction had "risked it being priced into oblivion" until David Lynch convinced the Maharishi to "radically reduce" fees to allow more young people to learn TM. Some 2009 news reports say U.S. fees were reduced to $1,500 for the general public and $750 for college students for a one-hour-a-day, four-day course. A 2009 report from ABC News said fund from the David Lynch Foundation had allowed 70,000 students around the world to learn the TM technique "for free", and that the cost for learning at a TM center "can be as high as $750 to $1,000" per person. Fees in the UK were also reduced, and a tiered fee structure ranging from £290 to £590 for adults, and £190 to £290 for students (depending on income) was introduced. In the USA as of June 2012, the TM course fees were $1,500 for adults, $750 for full-time students, $2,150 for couples and $375 for children under 18 years old, and grants, scholarships and loans were said to be available.

History of Marketing

Content removed from the Marketing section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the 1960s, "seekers" who had learned from the "psychedelic experience" began turning toward meditation. Beginning in 1959, the Maharishi began "building an infrastructure" using a "mass marketing model" for teaching the TM technique to Westerners. First, the Maharishi visited the U.S. because he felt that its people were ready to try something new, and the rest of the world would then "take notice". By the same token, the Maharishi's insistence that TM was easy to do was not a "marketing ploy". In the mid 1960s, the TM organization began presenting its meditation to students via a campaign led by a man named Jerry Jarvis who had taken the TM course in 1961. By 1966, the Students Meditation Society (SIMS) had begun programs in colleges such as Berkley, Harvard, Yale and others, and was a "phenomenal success". In the late 1960s, the TM technique received "major publicity" through its associations with The Beatles, and by identifying itself with various aspects of modern day counterculture. TM is said to have taken full advantage of all available publicity, and began to market to specific populations, such as spiritual people, political people and "pragmatic" self-help people. The latter approach is said to have been "given impetus" by the scientific research on the technique. In The Future of Religion, sociologists Bainbridge and Stark write that, while the movement attracted many people through endorsements from celebrities such as The Beatles, another marketing approach was "getting articles published in scientific journals, apparently proving TM's claims or at least giving them scientific status".

While I agree with your intention. I don't feel the removal of this text above solves anything. First, the content you have left in the article now gives undue weight to just a few authors ie Goldberg and Bainbridge. Also, it doesn't solve the real issue which is that this article is about the technique, not about the marketing activities of the organization. I think the better solution would be to move the entire Marketing section here (including the text above which you removed) to the TM movement article. Or if that article is getting too big then create a stand alone article by combining the Marketing section from this article with the Media and Promotion sections of the TM Movement article to create a stand alone article called TM marketing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with Kbob above, I don't see any other comments on my edit so I'll revert myself pending further discussion.(olive (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

I disagree with you actually. I removed content that contributed to a historical perspective of marketing in the TM movement which in my opinion is coat rack content in this article. I think marketing the technique straddles at least two articles, this one included, so I wouldn't move all of the section. We are talking about marketing the technique and this article is about the technique Also, I don't think weight refers to authors. But I would agree that if the section is not neutral it should be adjusted. As I said, my edits are an attempt to move here content that is extraneous and may have contributed per two uninvolved editor's comments to the tedious read of the article. I'm happy to see someone here joining in the discussion and I have no problem with any other editor reverting anything I've done so far. :O)(olive (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

I have said previously that I agree with the need to reduce the article. Its the 'how' of it, that needs discussion. User Aryjayay said here: "The article is entitled Transcendental Meditation technique but there is remarkably little on "technique" and a lot on "Courses", "Institutional programmes" and "Marketing". This article is now considerably bigger than the article on Transcendental Meditation itself and I wonder if the two articles (are there more on TM?) need their material re-allocating and/or re-dividing under different headings." With this in mind, my suggestion is to move all the content from the Marketing section to TM movement article and leave behind in this article, a brief summary of the entire section, with a redirect to the appropriate TM movement section. What do you think of that idea? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding per WP:WEIGHT is that we are presenting significant mainstream viewpoints. We don't have to inline cite who or which sources are responsible for that viewpoint unless it is contentious. My sense is that we should be indicating in more of a summary style what the main points are about marketing the technique rather than repeating per every source, a position.(olive (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

If we have many sources then we should not remove some and highlight the remaining one or two sources with inline attributions. Instead we should include all sources and relevant information via individual inline attributions or by dispensing with inline attribution and creating a summary text that effectively summarizes all of the sources and information. I think my suggestion above to move the entire section and leave behind a brief summary would accomplish this. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments and feedback from an uninvolved editor

I recently asked an uninvolved editor (User:Arjayay) to take a critical look at the article and give some feedback. The [entire] discussion on their talk page can be seen here. Please see a breakdown of Arjyaya comments below:

Too long

• Arjayay comment: My initial reaction was WP:TLDR – at 10,000 words it is as long as some university dissertations - but I persevered to the end.........The article is entitled Transcendental Meditation technique but there is remarkably little on "technique" and a lot on "Courses", "Institutional programmes" and "Marketing". This article is now considerably bigger than the article on Transcendental Meditation itself and I wonder if the two articles (are there more on TM?) need their material re-allocating and/or re-dividing under different headings.
• Response: Currently under discussion. (see threads below)

Criticsm dismissed

• Arjayay comment: I found parts of the article too promotional, with criticism mentioned in passing, almost dismissively, rather than being addressed, or explained,
• Response: Arjayay was asked to be specific so those sections can be fixed

Benefits/Fees/Advertisement

• Arjayay says: whereas talk about the benefits and the fees being charged, almost reads like an advertisement.
• Response: Fees removed by Keithbob here and Olive here

Too many quotes

• Arjayay comment: Personally, I feel there are far too many quotations, which makes it appear well referenced, but these are mostly subjective – from participants, rather than objective - comparing the technique with other forms of meditation – in fact I don’t remember reading any “compare and contrast” at all.
• Response: Keithbob removes one quote here (it's a small start)

'Neutrality tag

• Having looked at the article history, I note you have just removed the neutrality tag. As the editor who has essentially re-written the entire article, I do not believe you (or anyone else, including myself) are detached enough to be able to assess the neutrality of what you have written. Having looked at the talk page I note that you have stated “At present I do not see an neutrality issues, so I am removing the tag. If anyone disagrees they should feel free to replace the tag and giving a list of reasons here so that we can address them.” As stated above, I do not think it is neutral, and I am also worried by the phrase “so we can address them”, I do not know who “we” are, but this could be seen as an attempt to WP:OWN the article. I know almost nothing about TM, so I cannot criticise specific points, but remain concerned about the overall tone and lack of criticism...........I admire your reinstatement of the neutrality tag - I didn't do it as I don't know enough about TM - I just had a gut reaction on reading the article.
• Response: Neutrality tag was reinstated by Keithbob pending further evaluation by others.

The lead

• You specifically asked for comment on the lede which at 400 words may be slightly too long. In particular, the third paragraph – the New Jersey Schools event seems rather specific for a lede, was this a big deal in the US? (I’m in the UK) but it was 35 years ago – does it merit 12% of the lede?.........If the NJC event is important enough for the lede, it needs explaining better (but briefly) - I didn't understand its importance - I'm in the UK but although en.wiki can appear US-centric, well over half the readers are not in the US. (I can't find the figure but seem to remember it's about 1/3 US readers and 2/3 non-US)
  Loosing the costs from the lede would help, as would a reduction in the main article.
• Response: The lead was edited by User:Littleolive oil to clarify and adjust weight.

Wider opinion

• Arjayay comment: Having looked at your recent edits, I note that (when I looked) I am the only editor you have asked for an opinion from, although having done an editor check, over 20 editors have edited the article more than the once that I have. I suggest you canvass a wider opinion.
• Response: Any suggestions from other editors about how to go about canvassing a wider opinion?

I have posted Arjayay's comments in their entirety above (along with responses) so they can be carefully considered and acted on as appropriate by myself and others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have replaced the neutrality tag and am concerned about areas in the current article that Arjayay feels are non-neutral. I want to remedy that as neutrality is important to WP and to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In rereading the article and looking for criticism, it looks to me like there 's a fair amount included in the characterization section... which in effect is saying this is both the positive and negative way the technique is viewed or is characterized in sources. We do have to make clear that this is about the technique specifically, as well, not the movement. That said, its incredibly valuable to have an editor with no agenda come into this discussion and I'm very interested in working on the article with his/ her opinions in mind. I also really want this article to be neutral.

I'd add that any sense that this is advertising in any way has to be corrected. So I'll look through and see if I can see a way to both describe the technique, but not seem to advertise it, and look forward to more input on that point as well. (olive (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

I agree. Arjayay's comment concerns me. I have posted on his user page emphasizing how important I feel this issue is and I have asked him to ID those sentences or sections so that they can be remedied right away.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove fees from lead

One suggestion from Arjayay was to remove the fees from the lead as they made it sound promotional so I have done that. If anyone disagrees they are free to change and/or discuss here on the talk page. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I think there has been discussion on that in the past.(olive (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Reduce article focus and size

Arjayay has also said that the article is a bit long at 10,000 words and that there some sections which are about Courses, Institutional programs and Marketing that could be moved out of the article. I think he is right that these topics may be more about the organization than about the technique. For example the movement offers advanced courses not the TM technique. Likewise it offers the institutional programs and does the marketing. So maybe they should be moved to the TM movement article? The TM movement article is currently 7,000 words long so we would probably want to create a separate article for Institutional programs and just have a summary of the institutional programs in the TM tech and TM movement articles with a link to the main article. These are my ideas. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work Kbob and excellent comments by an uninvolved editor which should help give a good direction to the article. I wish we had more of that. I 'd like to join the discussion, so will as soon as I can.(olive (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC))

Advert-like style

I've started hacking away at the article hopefully removing language that may be contributing to a more advert -like style, but I'm not removing content. Please feel free to stop me at any point as I charge ahead.(olive (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Kbob for the work on this article.My changes are in no way meant to act as a criticism of the work you did.... I think its tricky to find language to describe in summary style big numbers like 340 research studies....in a sense my edits create less accuracy than what you had in place but we are bound by both the encyclopedic style Wikipedia encourages and the comments of an uninvolved editor so I hope you'll forgive my changes and let me know if you feel its better or worse than what was already in place. I'm not attached to anything.(olive (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

I've been distracted by some real life issues this past week. When I have time. I'll look at your edits and comment here. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I am happy to have the help of others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your changes to the lead are good and adding the Maharishi as the founder essential info I forgot.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased source

This source was added four times (by a now banned user) ...... and I have a problem with it:

• 1)The source document is hosted at a Christian website that says it "affirms the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible".
• 2) The author of the article, Vishal Mangalwadi, is the Co-founder & director of the Christian organization: Theological Research and Communication Institute (TRACI), New Delhi [3]
• 3) The author makes his Christian agenda clear in his final paragraph called Talking Points: "Once we can help a Hindu to see that man’s basic problem is moral, that we are guilty of breaking God’s law and deserve punishment, it will be easier for him to see that Christ is the only way to salvation, [bold added] i.e. forgiveness and reconciliation, because he is the only one who has died for sin.
• 4) The author's bio says: Vishal and Ruth are currently in the United States exploring The Soul of Western Civilization - the Bible. This study was inspired by Vishal and Ruth's recognition of India's need for the reforming power of the Bible."

I suggest that this source be removed. At present this source supports the following content:

• "all who want to learn are taught" --- not an important sentence since TM is taught to the general public
• "Vishal Mangalwadi says the mantras, having the names of deities, are meaningless sounds used in the Japa yoga tradition." There are several expert sources already cited in the article who comment on the mantras.
• "and students are required to bring a clean handkerchief, some flowers and fruit, and their course fee." --This text is already cited by another source.
• "The TM teacher is said to "worship" the picture of Guru Dev during the TM instruction, puja ceremony." --Several other expert sources are already cited in the article regarding the details of the puja ceremony. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

From the evidence presented it seems this source is redundant, since others have already made similar points, and also biased, because of its strong POV. As such, I lean in favor of removal, but, if you wanted more opinions you could check with a NB, like [WP:RSN} to see whether this is considered a reliable source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've posted it at RSN here and interested editors may also note a prior RSN discussion on a similar topic here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the response from editors here and at RSN and the consensus (Lukewarmwater101, Coaster92 and myself favored removal of the source with mixed comments from Fifelfoo), I have made the following changes:

• "all who want to learn are taught" --Removed Mangalwadi source, left text intact
• "Vishal Mangalwadi says the mantras, having the names of deities, are meaningless sounds used in the Japa yoga tradition." There are several expert sources already cited in the article who comment on the mantras.--Remove Mangalwadi source and the sentence since this info is already covered in the previous sentence which is properly sourced and says: Author, Lola Williamson writes that the bija, or seed mantras used in TM come from the Tantric, rather than Vedic tradition, and that bija mantras are "traditionally associated with particular deities and used as a form of worship"
• "and students are required to bring a clean handkerchief, some flowers and fruit, and their course fee." Removed Mangalwadi source, left text intact since it is already cited by another source
• "The TM teacher is said to "worship" the picture of Guru Dev during the TM instruction, puja ceremony."--Removed source and sentence as there is already several sentences of well cited text that clearly outline the role and participation of both the student and the teacher in relation to the "puja ceremony".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits

Hi Keithbob. Thanks for your invitation to review the article for possible promotional tone. I looked at some of it so far and made just a couple of small edits. Will review more as time permits.Coaster92 (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A new set of eyes is valuable. I hope you have time to read it through carefully and give feedback and/or make changes as needed. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Keithbob, overall, imo the article seems to bring out a variety of viewpoints, and looks pretty neutral. Just a few things I noticed after a quick read:

1)What does it mean under TM Teachers, the end of paragraph 2, “and teachers led their students through a sequence of predetermined steps”? How does this fit in here? Should it say, “teachers lead their students….”?

2)Under Course Descriptions, regarding the statement purportedly from reference 83, that “the movement is not exploitive,” I don’t see that statement in that reference.

3)Under SCI (1971) the statement that scientists and a Nobel prize winner went to the Humboldt course seems promotional unless you identify who they were. Maybe this could be re-worded to work.

4)Also, under SCI (1971), second paragraph, there is a reference to "Shear." I don't see where this person is identified in the article.

I have a couple of comments about quotes, which I will post in that section of the talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering if the discussion of the various school projects involving TM might work well in a separate article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coaster, Thanks for going through the article and giving detailed feedback. I have numbered your points above (I hope that is alright) so I can respond to each one.

1)The source says: "What was truly distinctive was that [TM] teachers guided students into the practice with a series of algorithmic steps: if A, then X; of B, then Y; if neither A nor B, then Z; and so on. This enabled wet-behind the ears youngsters to lead anyone in a satisfying meditative experience." So you can edit it as you see fit.

2) Good catch. You are correct the source does not say that. However I did locate the same quote here in The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions, By Brandon Toropov, Father Luke Buckles.

3) If you think that sentence seems promotional, please feel free to remove it.

4) That should be amended per the source, so it is clear to the reader that Shear is this author: Shear, J. (Jonathan) (2006). The experience of meditation : experts introduce the major tradition.

Let me know if you need any help making these changes. And thanks again for your help in improving the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coaster and thanks for making those changes. There is a guideline in WP:TALK that discourages editors from changing or adding to other editors talk page posts. In this case you have just added to my comments but you didn't sign them and I almost missed them. Its actually good you did not sign as it would further confuse my post. What I suggest is moving your comments into their own distinct entry and signing you entry. As for your changes to the article:

You changed 'led' to 'lead', good edit

Yes I suggest you remove the source which does not support the text and post it here in case it can be used by another editor for something else.

Benton Johnson: It's a scholarly paper. I found it by searching Google Scholar. However, you must pay to see it. [4] Other substitute sources include: Gov.au or Amazon or Jefferson, William (1976) Pocket Books, The Story of The Maharishi, pp118-123 which says: "Melvin Calvin, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry.... says that while he did address the symposium on SCI" and "a series of international symposia on SCI in which many notables from science and academia participated". Another attendee was Buckminster Fuller seen here on the Maharishi (YouTube) Channel [5] which would be a reliable source since it is published by the video owners.

According to the back of his book, as seen on Amazon: "Jonathan Shear is Affiliate Associate Professor in the Department of Philosphy at Virginia Commonwealth University and Managaning Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies"-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Keithbob, for sure, I was not trying to change your post, only to respond to your comments that were addressed to me. Anyhow, I moved my comments here. Regarding #1, I went ahead and changed "led" to "lead" for consistent verb tense.

2, I added this reference but could not determine the page number. I left the other reference as well because I didn't want to leave you without a record of it. I could just transfer the reference to this talk page or you can save it for your records. But I think it does need to be deleted. OK, now I have deleted the reference and here it is: Alternative Religions:A Sociological Introduction, Stephen Hunt, pp.197-198 [6]

3, I would like to look at the reference first if possible. Any ideas about how I can view the reference online? I will look around in the places you mention.

4, I would like to know his field if possible rather than just give his name. OK, got your info.Coaster92 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the talk page confusion. Let me know if I can help with anything else. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this article in detail and to help improve it. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OK Keithbob, first off, I am not changing your talk page entry. I am adding something to the talk page. Second, I added the specifics about B. Fuller and Melvin Calvin based on the quotes you provided. I couldn't get into a reference myself. I added the reference as well. But imo adding specifics sounds more encyclopedic and less promotional. Please let me know what you think.Coaster92 (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding specifics are helpful. Thanks! Anything else you see that needs improving? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I think I need to include a reference to the you tube video but I do not see how to reference a you tube video. I looked at the wiki citation guidelines. Any idea where else I might find that info? Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I tend to create citations for YouTube using the same format as books: author, date, publisher, title etc. But the official guidelines are here Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this cite look correct, KB? Maharishi and Buckminster Fuller Press Conference. [7]. Amherst, 1971. Maharishi Channel.org.Coaster92 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was me, I would cite it something like this:

Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh and Fuller, Buckminster (1971) Maharishi Channel Maharishi and Buckminster Fuller Press Conference YouTube, retrieved Sept 24, 2012 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks KB. I entered the reference using your format.Coaster92 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision to research section

Over the past months I have updated the TM Research article, incorporating comment from several recently published scientific textbooks, a new systematic review, and a new meta-analysis. Accordingly, I have also updated the research section of this main article. For more information, please see the posts on the TM Research talk page Aug 17 and 19, here[8] and here[9].EMP (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good change. Thanks EMP>-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions of anonymous and/or non-notable individuals

There are many instances in this article where the opinions of anonymous and/or non-notable individuals are cited in the article because they have been reported in secondary sources. While the sources themselves are reliable, the question arises: Is it encyclopedic to include these fringe opinions and claims, that have been 'disowned' by the author/source via attribution, to anonymous and/or non-notable individuals? (A list of examples is shown below) Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up as a response to Arjayay's comment that there are too many quotes in the article. For example this quote from a non-notable TM teacher (included in the list below) is non-notable and promotional: "Our new Maharishi Peace Center has been established to offer all sixty programs, products and courses of the TM movement including Transcendental Meditation".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kdithbob, maybe you could clarify. Are you suggesting that these sources themselves are not RS for this content or are you questioning the reliability of comments made by individuals cited within the sources? I'm not clear on your meaning.(olive (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC))

Good question. Let me clarify. I am not challenging the sources or the authors (except Adam Smith and his book). So if Bainbridge or Chrysiddes give their scholarly evaluation on something then I don't have any problem with what they report in the books. Nor do I have any issue with a news article in a major newspaper that quotes an expert in the field or a notable person. However, if a reliable sources attributes a piece of information to the opinion of an anonymous or non-notable person, I don't think it is encyclopedic to include the personal opinion from a non-notable second party, in a Wikipedia article. Under the present editorial practices I would place these quotes in the TM articles. Is that what we want?:

• Business Standard (Hong Kong) Aug 16, 1986, It’s Fly-day so hop for the best…Carolyn Watts
  • Mr. Irons says, "It’s a very overwhelming sensation that goes through every cell of your body. It’s a great feeling of great happiness"
• Society (India) September 1986
  • "There is tremendous bliss in [yogic] flying” says Richard Lamarita.
• Associated Press, (New Delhi) July 21, 1986, Meditators Hop for Peace in First World ‘Yogic Flying’ Olympics, Victoria Graham
  • Hidekatu Kitarmura, an acupuncture practioner from Japan, said, “Mediation and TM helps in my profession. TM is more enjoyable than Zen and it helps me understand the subtle activity of the body."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you that those posts are definitely from non notable people, but what does Wikipedia say about this? I guess I would like to understand more about the connection between notability, and notable quotes. I guess we all agree that TM is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, but do quotes have to be notable as well? Just trying to get my head around this.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy that addresses this or where to look for one. But it just seems non-encyclopedic to me. If you find relevant policy, please share it here. We could take this to a noticeboard to get some outside opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Notability references the potential subject of an article and whether that subject is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Notability doesn't refer to the content in an article, actually.

What we are assessing seems to me is whether the speakers (of the quotes) are reliable for the comments they are making. Chryssides who is certainly reliable as he is academic in a field that deals with NRMs may be citing someone else who is not an expert in the subject of the article, and as I understand Kbob's question, is that secondary speaker either significant enough or reliable enough for one of our articles. There's nothing wrong with using quotes per se. Some editors object to overusing them.

I believe this has to be a per source discussion. We can't make general comments about sources. (olive (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

I think this is a good way to go about it, "non notable" and "trivial" may not be the same thing. Even a quote from a non notable person can provide a relevant perspective, but too many such quotes will add unnecessary material to an article. So let's review them --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent comments, let's review them below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which of these are appropriate for the article? And which ones should be removed?

Please comment below each item. Note: bold added by me to show who is making the claim or opinion.

Item 1

• Laura Tenant, a reporter for The Independent, described her TM experience as going "to a place which was neither wakefulness, sleeping or dreaming", and becoming "detached from my physical self".
  • DELETE--This is a reliable public person but she's giving her subjective description of the TM experience and it may be promotional.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see this as promotional. Its simply an opinion. I don't see her as any more reliable for an opinion of what the technique feels like than anyone else. Should it be used in Wikipedia's voice as definitive information about the technique. Not in my opinion. Could it be used in a section that chronicles personal feed back. Yes. Do we have such a section? Not at this time.(olive (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

  • I agree with the suggestion to deleteOctopet (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I agree that the source in itself is reliable as is the author, but the subject matter is an opinion. It would be appropriate if listed for that very limited purpose i.e. to portray an opinion by the author, but not as information on the technique itself. If this is what it is being used for, I think we might delete. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      • This seems to be a primary source, which per wiki guidelines is OK to use for straightforward descriptive statements of fact that can be verified by others with access. In essence, the author is a percipient witness as opposed to an expert. Olive Oil's suggestion to have a separate section for this topic could make it work. IMO it would not have to be promotional if various perspectives are presented.Coaster92 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• A secondary source since this is a publication (newspaper) and it has oversight.(olive (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I see what you are saying, the source is secondary but the opinion is primary. Wondering if publication in another source really changes that.Coaster92 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is oversighted publication that does change the status of the comment. If I publish my own diary, that is a primary source, and my diary itself, is a primary source. If however, a publisher like Double Day for instance, decides to publish my diary, that diary is a secondary source by virtue of its publication in a publishing house which has oversight over its publications, t and the diary can become a reliable source for certain kinds of Wikipedia content. Hope that helps explain.(olive (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

No clear consensus, so I'm leaving it in place.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 2

• Author Adam Smith writes that his TM teacher "Buzz" said to him: "Every once in a while somebody goes through TM, and then a friend gets interested and they tell the friend the mantram, [sic] just to save the initiation fee. It doesn't work"
  • DELETE--I don't see the value of this 'hearsay' sentence and I don't like this source (Adam Smith) as the book is a collection of his first person experiences with various new age practices.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    I agree with the suggestion to deleteOctopet (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Though the book is published by a reputable publishing house and must have had editorial supervision, this is an unverifiable quote which adds no reliable factual information to the article. So I'd say we ought to remove it.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

    • This seems to be a primary source to which others do not have access and cannot verify. Deletion seems in order.Coaster92 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure where to draw the line on this kind of source. Once again this is anecdotal, and adds nothing to the article except a positive slant on why TM should be taught by TM teachers. Again this kind of information should come from either scholarly sources if we have them or from the TM organization itself as self defining. I don't believe this is a primary source since it has been published in a publication with oversight, and a reliable publication process.(olive (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC))
• I'm going to let someone else decide about the consensus on this discussion and if the sentence should be removed or not.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like all who have commented are in agreement to delete. I'll wait a couple of days and then go ahead and make the edit unless someone comments otherwise.Coaster92 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looked to me like there was a consensus to delete so I went ahead and took out the quote.Coaster92 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 3

• William Jefferson, in The Story of the Maharishi, writes that "virtually no one" is "willing to reveal his secret word", and he quotes an ex-TMer as saying: "whether I believe it or not, one should respect the principles" (William Jefferson, The Story of The Maharishi)
  • DELETE--The author and source are reliable but I don't see the value of quotes from ex-TMer's. Its like asking a divorcee for an objective opinion of their ex-husband or wife.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    I agree with the suggestion to delete. Doesn't provide any factual informationOctopet (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Again an unverifiable personal opinion, no facts added. There are so many of these. I think the article would gain in simplicity and clarity if this was removed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

    These seem to be two random opinions that can't be verified. I agree to delete.Coaster92 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• The first part, "virtually no one" is "willing to reveal his secret word" given with a date, might be OK since it is information in the author's voice in a book on MMY. The second part, "an ex-TMer as saying: "whether I believe it or not, one should respect the principles", is anecdotal again.

If we want to be consistent this part should probably go, especially that it doesn't add much to the article.(olive (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Olive that he first part of the sentence is the voice of the author of a book who has thoroughly researched the topic with editorial oversight, so it is valid. However, 'to be consistent' (as Olive puts it) I have removed the whole sentence. Anyone who disagrees may replace the first part of the sentence, if they so choose.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 4

• Sociologist William Sims Bainbridge writes that TM teachers say the mantras are selected "to match the nervous system of the individual".
  • KEEP--Good source, but remove "TM teachers say" and find other sources that say the same but don't qualify it like this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed this by adding a sepcific quote from Philosophy and Religious Studies scholar Cynthia Humes which supports what Bainbridge says and eliminates the need for the article to contain a claim made by unspecified individuals. The sentence now reads as follows:

• TM students are therefore given a "specially suited mantra". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Great job, keep of course.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 5

• In 1984, 16 mantras[34][44][45] were published in Omni magazine based on information from "disaffected TM teachers"
  • KEEP It gives context.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    It is a verifiable fact that the mantras were posted and this is not a quote or a personal opinion, so keep.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• • If the source is reliable, this seems appropriate.Coaster92 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 6

• According to Chryssides, TM teachers say that the promised results are dependent on a trained Transcendental Meditation teacher choosing the mantra for their student.
  • KEEP--Good source, but remove the words "TM teachers say" and find sources that stand by the assertion without a qualifier. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I DISAGREE: I'm not familiar with this source but I don't think Chryssides statement is accurate. TM presenters say the results of TM are dependent on the correct use of the mantra, not only on the mantra chosen by the teacher. Another point, results from TM are not "promised". Students sign an agreement before learning stating they understand they are not being promised specific results. However, I don't know of a citation for that. Octopet (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading the whole section I think this last sentence ("According to Chryssides...) is redundant and should be deleted.Octopet (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

KEEP, I do not really see any difference between this sentence and the preceding ones in the same paragraph. Redundant they may be, but which should be deleted?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that someone summarize as needed so the information remains the same but we don't have to reference anonymous sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 7

• Former TM teacher and University professor Don Krieger, calls the ceremony "an act of idolatry"
  • DELETE--Personal opinion of non-notable, ex-TM'er.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Note: Krieger is a professor of neurosurgery at University of Pittsburg with no apparent expertise in the field of meditation or new religious movements, sociology etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

    I agreee, the description of Krieger's professional qualification creates the impression that this person is qualified to give a factual opinion, but indeed he does not have any expertise, it is a simple personal opinion without factual relevance, it should probably go.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree to delete. Unless it is established that he is an expert in the field and the basis for his opinion, this is a random opinion.Coaster92 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence(s) reads as follows: Former TM teacher and University professor Don Krieger, calls the ceremony "an act of idolatry", while former U.S. Congressman Richard Nolan describes it as "corny". According to author William Jefferson, "even people who no longer do TM were never bothered by the ceremony". Should we remove all three of these opinions as non-experts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• All the quotes sound chatty rather than reliable and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Coaster92 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A TM teacher former or otherwise is an expert in the puja, so I'd suggest keeping this quote/comment.(olive (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Item 8

• A reporter for The Sunday Times was initiated into the TM technique and said it had a calming effect, but that the idea that TM could help bring world peace seemed "ludicrous".
  • DELETE--its generic and non-encyclopedic.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it offers no great information. I appreciate that it is clearly presented as a personal opinion and not disguised as fact, nonetheless, it is probably irrelevant.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• • There seem to be two statements here, each of which needs to be analyzed independently. Regarding the first statement about the calming effect, I would re-state what I said above: "This seems to be a primary source, which per wiki guidelines is OK to use for straightforward descriptive statements of fact that can be verified by others with access. In essence, the author is a percipient witness as opposed to an expert. Olive Oil's suggestion to have a separate section for this topic could make it work. IMO it would not have to be promotional if various perspectives are presented." The second statement is an opinion for which no basis is given. I would keep the first and delete the second.Coaster92 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to let someone else decide if there is consensus in this discussion and act accordingly.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 9

• In 2006 the High Country Press reported that TM teacher, Tony Miles said "Our new Maharishi Peace Center has been established to offer all sixty programs, products and courses of the TM movement including Transcendental Meditation".
  • DELETE--Its promotional.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• REMOVE The Tony Miles quote seems out of place, a statement about one small location in the midst of world wide coverage, consequently probably promotional.Coaster92 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • DELETE:Does not belong in the section at all, totally out of contest.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed text per consensus and am parking the source here for further use: Cite news|url=http://www.highcountrypress.com/weekly/2006/03-02-06/n_heavenly.htm%7Clast=Treadwell%7Cfirst=Sally%7Ctitle=What's going on at Heavenly Mountain?|work=High Country Press|date=March 2, 2006 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 10

• A Jewish Revivialist called TM "an insidious form of worship" while Trappist monks in Spencer, Massachusetts find it useful. (William Jefferson, The Story of The Maharishi)
  • NEUTRAL---- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • KEEP The section gathers together a series of quotes from religious personalities, This is just one more, I think it belongs. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 11

• a former TM teacher said in 2004 that he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on "TM sessions, retreats, and teacher training".
  • DELETE--Anonymous quote that does not give any unique or purposeful info.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Another quote from Krieger [same source as the one cited above] who is a professor of neurosurgery at University of Pittsburg with no apparent expertise in the field of meditation or new religious movements, sociology etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • DELETE As per item 7.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The reliability of this anonymous statement is not apparent. I would delete.Coaster92 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the text and am parking the source here in case it is of value for other information in the article. The Independent|location=London|date=April 8, 2010|title=How The Beatles' meditation technique could cure depression|first=Jeremy |last=Laurance|page=16-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 12

• A 2009 article in The Guardian quoted complementary medicine professor, Edzard Ernst, as saying "there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children [P.S. Does this satisfy WP:MEDRS?] and the existing data is deeply flawed."
  • DELETE per WP:MEDRS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:MEDRS and consistent with how we are treating non reliable references to Health related research.(olive (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC))
  • I have removed the sentence in question per WP:MEDRS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 13

• According to the Maharishi's nephew, Girish Varma, chairman of the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools Group, "scientific researches have proved that one can attain divine power through Transcendental Meditations".[sic]
  • DELETE: an unsubstantiated promotional claim.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Appears to violate WP:MEDRS-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Remove: Not a RS for research especially when referring to such an extraordinary claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.(olive (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC))
• Remove: Without establishing Girish Varma’s qualifications and research process, the Girish Varma quote seems to be a wild card and not really helpful.Coaster92 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed the sentence per consensus and WP:FRINGE:
    • "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
    • "While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.............. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all."
    • Also the cited source is primary (Maha Media) and does not conform to WP:RS which says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
  • The sentence and its source are documented above and if anyone can find reliable sources that "affirm the relationship" between Girish Varma's claim and mainstream coverage on the TM technique than it can be replaced in that context.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Unverifiable, this was properly removed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Item 14

Under the Maharishi Effect (1974) section, the statement says, according to a follower Maharishi said the earth will “yield up its treasures” when there is one percent, but what is the impact/point of a direct quote from an anonymous source? That might be considered promotional rather than reliable.Coaster92 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say this claim made by a follower should be removed. There have been many claims made by followers and reported in news articles and books. But they are often not appropriate quotes. Such as these quotes from TM followers in the book, Transcendence in America by Lola Williamson:

Mark: "My first experience meditating was profound. It was like finding a method to come home....."

Anonymous girl on a TM residence course: "There were long periods of 'witnessing' [maintaining Self awareness] throughout the day and witnessing sleep a lot too....."

Mark: "As waking state goes away, consciousness maintains itself....."

Aaron: "Just after starting TM....when I came out everything was different. Everything was alive and vibrating and light"........

There are many more of these in her book, plus anecdotes from Williamson herself:

Lola Williamson: "For the first time in my life, my mind settled down and my thoughts even stopped copletely for a short period oas I experience an internal silence that was new to me.... I felt as thought my life had taken a sharp turnabout".

There is also a TM description by Norman Rosenthal: "At certain points during any session I may experience transcendence--a feeling that I have gone beyond time and space."

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more available in other sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this should be deleted. It's silly to repeat these sorts of claims in an encyclopedia article. TimidGuy (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Coaster92 nominated this quote for consideration I'm going to let them determine the outcome of this discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the quote based on the consensus to delete shown here on the talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Original post of the above text-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Moved section here for discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm concerned about this discussion and the process. I'm not convinced the reasons to delete are good ones... so I'd like to take a little time in the next few days to look at this closely. Thanks for your patience(olive (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

I am confused. What standards are we applying? The claim by Girush Varma is unsubstantiated and I agree that it may be superfluous, but what standard are we using for these quotes? I would also definitely agree that an anonymous quote should be removed, but isn't Chryssides, for instance, an expert? I would like to see more discussion on this --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to quotes from an expert commenting in their field of expertise. My question is: are personal opinions from non-expert individuals (in some cases anonymous quotes) appropriate for an encyclopedic article? Policies and guidelines to consider when evaluating each quote (above) on a individual basis:

• WP:RS says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Some sources cited above are primary.
• WP:MEDRS "it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." ...."This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." Isn't "attain divine power" a super-normal ability and a bio medical claim? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this doesn't fall under MEDRS, in my opinion. (Maybe the landing part would:O) It is however, an extraordinary claim and this kind of information would require several extraordinary sources to be considered even a significant minority view and so includable. So as I said above I would remove the source and content in the article. (olive (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

• WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Are the personal opinions of non-experts, published in a single source, a "significant view"?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we continue look at these individually as we've been doing. There is no blanket yes or no statement that covers these situations, in my opinion. I also stand by my other comments . Context in the source is critical and placement and context in the articles are critical as well.(olive (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

You may be right, after reviewing yet again WP:VERIFY and WP:SPS I agree that having a lot of personal opinion quotes from non experts, whether "verified" or not, does tend to drown the article in trivia. As KBob said, we want to maintain a neutral point of view, and these opinions it seems to me, detract from that. In addition, there is the issue of undue weight. The proportion of "trivial" remarks to fact is pretty high; we can easily have some, but what we have right now is proportionally a bit much. So how do we begin? if we are to look at each quote individually should we make a list?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there already is a list above, I guess we start with that? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that context is important and we can't make a blanket statement about opinion quotes. I started with a big list to show how prevalent the issue is and to stimulate discussion. I suggest we continue to go through the list evaluate each item. If needed I/we can make a separate sub-section for each one, if that is desirable. Thanks for you participation in the discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I did create subsections yesterday to make this easier to read.(olive (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, just noticed that. You read my mind or maybe I read yours :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I will start reviewing the quotes above and add my two cents--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added citations as this may be help in your evaluation of each sentence. I've also amended the section titles, since we are assessing content, not the reliability of the source. We summarize reliable sources and do not need to include every detail from every source. So we are considering the items above in that context. Is each item an appropriate encyclopedic detail that should be included in this article based on WP guidelines such as MEDRS, NPOV, WEIGHT etc.?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is another guideline to consider when evaluating these quotes listed above. It says: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of related discussion at TM project page

I have started a thread at the TM project page as from time to time some editors have expressed concerns about the size of the topic area. If this concerns you, please join this discussion. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Institutional programs section

Some editors have suggested that the Institutions section dominates the article and may give undue weight:

• Also, I'm wondering if the discussion of the various school projects involving TM might work well in a separate article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• My initial reaction was WP:TLDR – at 10,000 words it is as long as some university dissertations - but I persevered to the end.........The article is entitled Transcendental Meditation technique but there is remarkably little on "technique" and a lot on "Courses", "Institutional programmes" and "Marketing". This article is now considerably bigger than the article on Transcendental Meditation itself and I wonder if the two articles (are there more on TM?) need their material re-allocating and/or re-dividing under different headings.--Arjayay

I'd like to stimulate a discussion of the issue by proposing some options:

• 1) Condense it--This would be difficult in my opinion since every sentence is cited and succinct.
• 2) Spin it off into its own article and leave behind a summary and a link.--I'm OK with this but others may object. Let's see.
• 3) Move it into another article. Either TM movement or History of TM--I'm OK with this option also but prefer the stand alone article.

Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate article would work well. The topic is also relevant to TM movement and history but imo the separate article would make the most sense.Coaster92 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to make that into a separate article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate article makes sense. The section is about 2500 words long, making it over one-quarter of the whole article, and as the editor quoted says, it doesn’t pertain so directly to the topic of article. (I also agree that the Marketing section seems tangential to the topic.) I would suggest moving it to TM Movement except that article is long already (But Marketing is not so long that it couldn’t go there, esp if TM Movement were given some needed trimming). I’d suggest a more interesting title than Transcendental Meditation—Insititutional Programs. Maybe, Transcendental Meditation in Education, Business, Social Outreach? EMP (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it could be called: Transcendental Meditation and Education. The short section on TM in prisons and homeless could stay here along with a short summary on TM and education. The mother article would then include this section at TM movement called educational institutions. And the Marketing section here could be moved to TM movement and combined with this Media/Promotion section. Just an idea. Any thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all good. I agree that the brief account of prison and homeless programs fit here, because it illustrates the range of application of the technique. Promo section of Transcendental Meditation Movement a good place for Marketing section here. And yes, should have a precis of the Ed. Institutions section from TM Movement in mother article. A precis of TM in Education there also? EMP (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a summary of TM ed in the TMM article too.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to make things clear.... what I (and I think EMP also) are proposing is:

• Move the "In Schools and Universities" section in this article to its own page titled Transcendental Meditation in education and leave behind a brief summary and link. Also leave behind the Institutional section heading and the subheadings: Corporate programs and Social programs (prisons/homeless/veterans).
• Then move the Education section from the TM movement article to the newly created Transcendental Meditation in education article.

Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'm going to go ahead with this in the next few days.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start the article split tomorrow. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Article split is done

Notice: Per this discussion thread above I have split the Education section of this article into a new article called Transcendental Meditation in education. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Malnak v. Yogi in the lead

Sometime ago an uninvolved editor questioned why the Malnak case was in the lead and said if it was so important that it had to be there, then it should be given context. [10] I have attempted to address that issue today with this edit [11]. However I am open to comments and discussion. The currenttext reads as follows:

• Beginning in 1965, the Transcendental Meditation technique has been incorporated into selected institutional programs such as schools, universities, corporations and prison programs in the U.S.A., Latin America, Europe, and India. In 1977, the TM technique and the Science of Creative Intelligence were deemed religious activities as taught in two New Jersey schools. This was a temporary but substantial set back for the TM program in the U.S.A though it has since come back with mild governmental support. SOURCE: Humes, C.A. (2005). "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Beyond the T.M. Technique". In Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Humes, Cynthia Ann (eds.). Gurus in America. SUNY Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-7914-6573-X."This lawsuit was the most significant setback for TM in the United States"...."Since then TM has made a comeback of sorts with some governmental sponsorship"
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Darn, I made my edit before reading this thread. I deleted part of what you wrote because it would require still more context. Humes is a new religious movement source, with an NRM perspective of TM as a religious movement. The notion of Malnak being a "setback" is an NRM view. The NRM perspective of TM as a religion is minor compared to the view that TM is an aid to health and mental development. It seems like the main point is that TM/SCI was held to be a religion in 1977 but the government has also subsequently supported (and continues to support) TM as a health aid. That seems more factual and neutral. The NRM perspective comes out more strongly in the Transcendental Meditation movement article. In any case, thanks for trying to implement the feedback from this uninvolved editor. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timid and thanks for joining the discussion. You said "The notion of Malnak being a "setback" is an NRM view" Could you explain that further. I don't get the connection. Right now the way its worded it almost appears that the court case spurred Govt support. I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm going to try to find more sources on this topic and see if we can sort this out. My main intention is to put the Malnak case in context. If it's not a pivotal or significant event in the history of the TM tech, than I don't see how it belongs in the lead. I'll see what I can find and post here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

New religious movement scholars see TM as a religious movement -- an organization that has a belief system that it tries to propagate. That's their particular overlay on reality, from their particular perspective. When Hume says Malnak was a setback, it's from her perspective: propagation of this belief system was set back because of this court decision. But the more common and more mainstream view of TM is that it's a simple relaxation technique. And it's a simple matter of fact that the majority of people who practice TM are unfamiliar with Maharishi's teachings, and are in no way a part of any religious movement. Feeling that the notion of a setback was skewing that paragraph toward a minor point of view, I deleted that phrase. But as you say, and as the uninvolved editor said, maybe Malnak doesn't need to be in the lead of this particular article -- which is about the Technique, not the Movement. TimidGuy (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Sources:

• In 1978, a federal court ruling asserting that TM was a religious practice denied access to public funds..... As a result, progress slowed dramatically in the United States, although growth proceeded in other areas of the world..... --Odd Gods, James R. Lewis, page 232-233
• TM has even unsuccessfully fought a legal action to defend itself from being declared a religion in NJ, since this would inhibit its presentation in public schools.--Cults and NRM's, Lorne L. Dawson, page54
• Late in 1977..a judge of the Federal District Court in Newark halted the TM school programs in public schools......The decline in recruitment began more than a year before levitation and nearly two years before the adverse court decision. -- The Future of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge, page 301-302
• New competition combined with the inevitable decline in media attention led to what businesspeople call diminished market share. Other factors contributed as well, such as intense opposition from Christian fundamentalists and a 1978 NJ court ruling that barred TM from being taught in public schools... American Veda, Philip Goldberg, page 169
• "This lawsuit was the most significant setback for TM in the United States"...."Since then TM has made a comeback of sorts with some governmental sponsorship" --- Humes, C.A. (2005). "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Beyond the T.M. Technique". In Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Humes, Cynthia Ann. Gurus in America. SUNY Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-7914-6573-X.

How should we summarize this information? Suggestions? comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it should be in the lead. It was the only case in the history of the TM movement which impacted schools, and one of only a few court cases Is this one of the most significant issues in discussing what the TM technique is as its position in the lead would indicate? However I am happy to go along with whatever others decide, so sure go ahead. I'm not saying I agree or disagree just that I'm not sure or convinced one way or the other.(olive (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC))

At the most this case impacted only the US and in a limited way. This isn't the US Wikipedia... :O)(olive (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC))

I wanted to make a point about the sources listed. While TM was deemed to be religious SCI and not TM was disallowed in schools. The sources don't make this critical distinction and are in fact inaccurate. So what we have in the article is fine because it is accurate as far as it goes. We have to be careful not to pair the Malnak ruling on TM, with government support which implies that it was TM that could not be taught in the funded public schools, and that government funding has reversed this. This is a kind of OR.(olive (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC))

Its true that there is no other single event being given this kind of prominence in the lead. Removing it would certainly solve the issue of how to put it in context. There is contradiction in the above sources about its impact for TM in the US--so summarizing it would be difficult without giving more undue weight. Maybe these details about legal cases brought against the organization(s) are more appropriate for the organization article (TM movement) and have less relevance here, particularly in this lead. Here is what User:Arjayay had to say about it:

• You specifically asked for comment on the lede which at 400 words may be slightly too long. In particular, the third paragraph – the New Jersey Schools event seems rather specific for a lede, was this a big deal in the US? (I’m in the UK) but it was 35 years ago – does it merit 12% of the lede?
• If the NJC event is important enough for the lede, it needs explaining better (but briefly) - I didn't understand its importance - I'm in the UK but although en.wiki can appear US-centric, well over half the readers are not in the US. (I can't find the figure but seem to remember it's about 1/3 US readers and 2/3 non-US)

What do others think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Malnak ruling would be better placed in the TM Movement article. Seems quite tangential to TM technique, esp for the majority of readers who are outside of US. (I appreciate the perspective of the UK editor.) TM was ruled by a New Jersey court to be too religious to be taught in public schools in that one state, 40 years ago. As TG says above, only those with a strong preoccupation with matters of religion might find it worthy of mention in this context.EMP (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Change order of paragraphs in lead

Paragraph 2 in the lead is about topics tangentially related to the TM technique, and then paragraphs 3 and 4 return the focus to the TM technique. I'd like to change the order so that we have three paragraphs directly about the TM technique and then the fourth paragraph that brings in the tangential topics of SCI, the TM-Sidhi program, and the Maharishi Effect. If there are no objections, I'd like to go ahead and make this small change. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It will make it more reader friendly I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have changed the order. TimidGuy (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Third para of opening section

Current:

The Transcendental Meditation technique has been described as both religious and non religious, as an aspect of a New Religious Movement, as having it roots in Hinduism, and by the TM movement as scientific and non-religious. Publicity campaigns for the TM technique have varied over its 50 year history. It has been praised for its visibility in the mass media and its effective global propagation, and criticized for turning its celebrity and scientific endorsements into propaganda.

The wording does not reflect the substantial additions that have been made of late to the Characterizations section, in which several writers outside of the TM orgn argue that TM is not religion. The above text implies that only the TM movement has argued thus. Also, does anyone else find the word “propaganda” (last sentence of para) non-neutral? It is normally has a very perjorative connotation (e.g. “communist propaganda”). Yes, the article quotes three writers, Xavier, Bainbridge and Stark, (see Marketing, intro para) characterizing TM publicity efforts as “propaganda,” but is it in accord with NPOV to transplant that sentiment to the lead? Alternative wording suggested below.

• Proposed:

The Transcendental Meditation technique has been described as both religious and non religious. Some scholars describe it as an aspect of a New Religious Movement, or as having it roots in Hinduism, while the TM movement and other scholars (ref s from Characterizations—Scholars section) describe it as scientific and non-religious. Publicity campaigns for the TM technique have varied over its 50 year history. It has been praised for its visibility in the mass media and its effective global propagation, and criticized for using its celebrity and scientific endorsements as a marketing tool....

EMP (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed revisions to your draft:

The Transcendental Meditation technique has been described as both religious and non religious. Some scholars describe it as an aspect of a New Religious Movement rooted in Hinduism while other scholars and clergy refer to it as a non-religious practice for self development. The public presentation of the TM technique over its 50 year history has been praised for high visibility in the mass media and effective global propagation and criticized for using celebrity and scientific endorsements as a marketing tool.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Another version removing weasel words:

The Transcendental Meditation technique has been described as both religious and non religious. The technique has been described in various ways including as an aspect of a New Religious Movement, as rooted in Hinduism, and as a non-religious practice for self development. The public presentation of the TM technique over its 50 year history has been praised for high visibility in the mass media and effective global propagation and criticized for using celebrity and scientific endorsements as a marketing tool.

(olive (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Thanks, both of you. I think Olive has done a good job of building on the previous two suggestions. As a matter of personal taste, I find KBob's language more interesting, but Olive's is cleaner and more encyclopedic, and that's what this site is all about. When in Rome . . .! Will add this vsn to the text if no further discussion. EMP (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the points of feedback we received from user:Arjayay was that the lead bordered on being too long. So I think if we can accurately summarize the main points as we have done here it's a good thing. I don't see my version as having weasel wording but I also don't object to Olive's version and it has the added benefit of being more succinct. So EMP you have my support to move ahead whenever you feel there is consensus to do so. And thanks for your input and participation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think using "some" and "other" can be considered generalization and weasel wording, but its not a big issue. What might be a consideration is that if we add wording that generalizes it could be changed at any time, so making a slight adjustment now may be a way to have more stability in this paragraph. Just a thought and I'm not attached to my version. And my version is pretty boring compared to the others :O) olive (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

Potential source:

• "It is understood in terms of the reduction of stress and the charging of one's mental and physcial batteries."--Partridge, Christopher (2004) Oxford University Press, New Religions: A guide to New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, pp 184
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources in lead

• It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques, ref name="google138", transcendental meditation (TM) is the most widely practiced and investigated"

The above text is making strong statements. I want to make sure these are reliably sourced and suggest that the supporting refs should be placed next to each assertion with a quote) instead of at the end of the sentence. I can't find the source for "most widely practiced" ie. ref name="google138" what is that? And does anyone have a source for "most widely researched"? Help please...-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, never mind I was able to find sources for all aspects of the sentence and cited them clearly. I think it is OK now but please take a look and let me know if anything further is needed. Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Redundant text in TM Sidhi section

In the TM-Sidhi program section [12], seems to me that the last sentence of the last para is redundant and irrelevant and should be deleted. The sentence:

It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor

Two reasons for deleting: First, this material is already covered, drawing upon more recent research, in the Research section of this article:

More research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of meditation practices. Sources vary regarding their assessment of the quality of research. Some cite design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor,[7][139][140] while others assert that the quality is improving and that when suitable assessment criteria are applied, scientific evidence supports the therapeutic value of meditation.

Second, it is a strain to find a connection between the TM-Sidhi program and healthcare research. Most of the research on the TM-Sidhi program has focused on its alleged effect on social indicators. Looking at the separate article on the TM-Sidhi program, I see there has been precious little research on this program and healthcare. It seems that this sentence has been dropped in from the clear blue sky, or at least one with only a few wispy clouds. Anyone object to cutting it? EMP (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the three sources cited to that sentence:

• Krisanaprakornkit, T.; Krisanaprakornkit, W.; Piyavhatkul, N.; Laopaiboon, M. (2006). Krisanaprakornkit, Thawatchai. ed. "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety"
• Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. "Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence."
• Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N (2010). Krisanaprakornkit, Thawatchai. ed. "Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6 (6): CD006507. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2. PMID 20556767. "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias"

The quotes in the refs refer to TM and to 'meditation'. They don't seem to directly address the TM-Sidhi program. Also if the paragraph on TM Sidhi program is not saying that the TMSP has an effect on healthcare, why do we need to say it doesn't have an effect? Unless I'm missing something I don't see it as a necessary sentence in this context. What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources refer to TM technique not TM Sidhi, so the content has no place in this article in my opinion and is pretty strange to have it stuck in to this article as if it refers to the research on the TM Sidhi program when it doesn't. This along with the concerns EMP has lead me to agree to remove the sentence.

@Kbob:When citing studies we can describe the outcome of the study. "No effect" is an outcome and gives us information on the study, just as well as "effect" also an outcome, does. For example when studying a new cancer drug, citing that the drug had no effect is critical information in the use of the drug and its potential for fighting cancer. This is my understanding anyway.(olive (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

The two reviews by Krisanaprakornkit do not reference any studies on the TM-Sidhi program. The review by Ospina does assess the quality of a handful of studies on the TM-Sidhi program but none of these are clinical studies related to healthcare. Ospina does make a broad conclusion about the 800 studies examined -- that no conclusions could be drawn. But it's hard to know their assessment of the quality of the few studies on the TM-Sidhi program that they examined, because the results of the assessment are scattered in an appendix that's organized by assessment criteria rather than by study. Anyway, the reviews by Krisanaprakornkit should be removed, and if there's a reference to Ospina, it should accurately represent what Ospina says. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the in-depth assessment of those refs. EMP (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Text removed recently, as per discussion. EMP (talk 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RS?

I'm wondering about the bolded words in this text from here [13]

Skeptic James Randi says SCI has "no scientific characteristics",[117] and in his 1982 book, says that TM's claims are no more substantiated by scientific investigation than other mystical philosophies.[210] A 2009 research review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry says that "despite the criticisms its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously."

SCI, since it is to a large extent philosophical, seems fair game for comment by non-scientist Randi, but comment on "TM's claims," which implies TM research? Early morning person (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there claims made for of the technique which are not scientific in nature. As well a claim is in itself not scientific, or is it? Some thoughts on this matter.(olive (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC))

I didn't express myself very well. I'm not concerned that Randi disputes "TM's claims" but that he comments on whether they are "substantiated by scientific investigation." I'm disputing his reliablity as a source re: the latter. Early morning person (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Randi's statement about TM is given out of context. What claims about TM? less stress?? the Maharishi Effect? and who is TM anyway? I think we should investigate the context of this quote and see if the source can be represented more accurately and in its proper context. That might take care of the issue about scientific investigation. Then we could also consider adding something new for balance if needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Randi's comments on the scientific research on TM are in no way compliant with WP:MEDRS. It's not a research review, and it's very dated. The book was published in 1982, whereas MEDRS recommends sources from the past 5 years. Hundreds of studies on TM have been published since 1982, and we should exclusively use recent research reviews to assess the scientific import. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also was thinking MEDRS might come into play here. But I think we have to look and see the context and ID what he's talking about first. If his comments concern health claims/benefits/effects etc. then they would would not be MEDRS compliant.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I did have a look at the book here [14] and Randi does make detailed comment on TM "claims" vis a vis scientific research and with respect to health. Since his book is not MEDRS compliant, this part of his quote does not belong here. EMP (talk 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is not applicable here, as Randi is not making medical claims. What Randi is specifically referencing is (i) that SCI, which is claimed to be the underpinning of everything about TM and its alleged effects, is not a real science; (ii) there is no substantiation of SCI by scientific investigation. The referenced sections of Randi's book relate principally to claims about alleged changes in consciousness, the Maharishi Effect and Yogic Flying, not to medical claims. This continued process of TM devotees agreeing among themselves to remove reliable sources critical of TM, the TM organization and its claims, is a direct violation of the TM ArbCom and has to stop. Fladrif (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the text had been deleted. If it was, then I think it was done prematurely. In my mind this discussion was still in progress and had reached a clear consensus. If Randi's comments are in regard to the Maharishi Effect and Yogi Flying then the text should state that. As for the name calling and unsubstantiated accusations, I'll address that issue in a more appropriate forum. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that Randi is referencing the Science of Creative Intelligence in this statement or that he says there is no substantiation of SCI by scientific investigations. I only see one mention of SCI in the chapter (and please correct me if I'm wrong): "The TM mantra is assuredly borrowed from well-established sources. So what is new? The Science of Creative Intelligence is what's new. This is what's going to save us, folks, and we'd better hurry along with it." He goes on to discuss the scientific evidence for TM. He covers the research on metabolic rate, oxygen consumption, hormone changes, EEG, reaction to stressful stimuli, intelligence, galvanic skin response, and the Maharishi Effect. The general statement regarding the claims not standing up to scientific investigation seems to be in reference his analysis of the scientific research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was to quick to make that edit to part of Randi's quotation. I didnt' realize discussion was still ongoing. I'll take a closer look at what Randi actually said in that particular ref and report back, altho TG has shed a lot of light on that already in his comment above. Meanwhile, I'll restore that content from the Harvard review that I also deleted. I'm open to wherever the discussion takes us, including keeping the quotation, if there is a good argument or substantial support for that. EMP (talk 16:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like we could go ahead and remove Randi's assertion that TM's claims aren't supported by scientific investigations. Randi's assertion is based on his evaluation of the biomedical claims, and according to WP:RS, "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a 'medical source' is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim." TimidGuy (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this sentence (below) from the section called Science of Creative Intelligence (Characteristics). The sentence has two parts to it:

• part 1) Skeptic James Randi says SCI has "no scientific characteristics,"[120] (cited toRandi's web page)
• part 2) and in his 1982 book, says that TM's claims are no more substantiated by scientific investigation than other mystical philosophies.[213] (cited to Randi's book:Flim Flam, page 94)

Part 1 of the sentence seems OK. However, Part 2, is not substantiated by the source which only mentions the Science of Creative Intelligence in one sentence in the entire book, and that sentence says: "The TM mantra is assuredly borrowed from well-established sources. So what is new? The Science of Creative Intelligence is what's new. This is what's going to save us, folks, and we'd better hurry along with it." So part 2 of the sentence is an egregious misrepresentation of the source and should be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I again looked at Randi's chapter on TM. This time I looked at the whole chapter Flim Flam and not just the sections that come up when you do a word search for SCI and TM in Google Books. I can't put it any better than does TG above--Randi comments extensively on the scientific research on TM, often referring to explicitly biomedical aspects of the research: EEG, oxygen consumption, hormone changes, etc. Because his statement that "TM's claims are no more substantiated by scientific investigation than other mystical philosophies" attempts to assess biomedical research, and since he is not commenting in an MEDRS compliant publication, my conclusion is that the statement does not belong in this article. EMP (talk 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)