Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

For technical reasons, a large number of tiny urls were removed from this archive

Focusing on well supported material

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Please

The scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation is published in serious peer-reviewed scientific journals over 30+ years. In the last couple of years alone, you can find published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as American Journal of Cardiology ( )-[this study was funded by the US government]; The American Journal of Hypertension ( ); The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation ( ).

Here is a list of the journals and universities that have published research on Transendental meditation over 35 years:

And various top level institutions are interested in the documented effects of TM: Quote: "Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles department of psychology, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, and the Maharishi University of Management College of Maharishi Vedic Medicine in Fairfield, IA, randomly split 60 African-American people with high blood pressure into two groups. One learned transcendental meditation (TM) and practiced it for 20 minutes, twice a day. The other received standard heart disease prevention education. Seven months later, researchers used ultrasound to measure fatty deposits and the thickness of the participants' artery walls. The TM group had a decrease in artery wall thickness, which could reduce heart attack risk by up to 11 percent and stroke risk by up to 15 percent. Artery wall thickness increased in the education group (Journal: Stroke, year: 2000). There's "very strong evidence from this and other studies that meditation has health-promoting effects," says Prevention advisor John Astin, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. And benefits could extend to all ethnic groups."

In addition, funding from the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), to study Transcendental Meditation has totalled $21 million in hard-won federal research grants (including a new grant of $1.4 million) [1]

And now several US public schools are using Maharishi's TM to enhance education: [2]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.17.93 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia policies

It appears to me that what you are saying is in accord with the Wikipedia policies, especially the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. What happens is that it took sometimes before the editors, myself included, understood these policies. They might not yet be fully appreciated by some of us. There are two other main components to these policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. Until now, the emphasis was on Neutral point of view and No original research, but it is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability that these three policies should be interpreted all together. Because we did not really appreciate the Verifiability policy, Neutral point of view was incorrectly interpreted to mean that we cannot reject any opinion that is publicly expressed, as long as the source is clearly defined. However, to the opposite, the Verifiability policy states that the source must be a reputable source in the subject area of the statement. In the case of scientific research, it means that the source must be a reputed peer-reviewed journal. The Verifiability policy states

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory.

Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is where we get confused. Consider the fact that some scientist X claims a statement Y in some source Z, and let us assumethat this fact could be verified because X is well identified in the source Z and can be contacted. For example, the scientist X may have posted his opinion Y in his weblog, the source Z. Note that statement Y is original research because it has not been published in a reputable source Z, and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Note also that a normal reference for any statement Y usually includes the authors X and the source Z where the statement is logged (e.g. a paper somewhere), which can be used to verify that X claims Y. The Verifiability policy states that the statement Y, even if it is supported by such a reference, if Z is not a reputable source, is not acceptable in Wikipedia. An example is when the source Z is a weblog, as mentioned above. Therefore, in general, the fact that we give the author X and the source Z, which can be used to verify that X claims Y, is not sufficient to include Y in Wikipedia. The confusion is that one can still argue that "X claims Y" is a fact, and a fact that we can verify. Therefore, by putting the emphasis on this fact when we mention Y, not on the statement Y per se, one may argue that Y can be indirectly mentioned in Wikipedia. However, this is a contradiction because the message that is sent to the readers is essentially the same in both cases: author X said statement Y in a source Z. Indeed, any experienced reader will interpret Y in terms of the author X and the source Z given in the reference. Therefore, the argument "X said Y is a verifiable fact" can become a trick to attempt to bypass in practice the Verifiability policy. It is not a trick if really the subject matter is the opinion of X. For example, the article might be about X. However, in accordance with the Verifiability policy, just the fact that X is an expert in the subject area of statement Y is not sufficient to mention statement Y or even the statement X said Y, unless the opinion of X is the subject matter. Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also an implicit confusion between the respectability of the author X and the reputation of the source Z. The Verifiability policy is not about whether or not the author X is a respected individual. It is about the reputation of the institution Z that published the statement Y of the author X. Even if X is more than respectable, in fact a great expert in the subject area of statement Y, the policy is that X should easily publish his statement Y in a reputable source, and then we can cite this source. The reputation of the source, which usually is a large neutral organization, is important because it means that the organization contains experts that will naturally verify that the statement is fair, non biased, etc. We see the connection between the Verifiability policy and the Neutral point of view policy. Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that by ignorance of the Verifiability policy some editors, in an honest attempt to be neutral, used an argument of the form "X said Y is a verifiable fact" to include statements Y that do not have a reputable source. Note how interelated are these policies. Once a statement Y without a reputable source appears in an article against the Verifiability policy, naturally other editors will try to explain that this statement is not really reliable, etc., but this kind of discussion is original research. We see that not respecting the Verifiability policy direclty leads to not respecting the No original research policy. Most sections in the article are examples of this, including the section on possible side effects. The solution is, as you suggest, to remove all statements Y without a reputable source Z and all related discussions, without getting confused with an argument of the form "X said Y is a fact". In fact, even an argument of the form "respectable expert X said Y is a fact" is not sufficient. It is sufficient to write X said Y or simply Y in the article, and give a reference with the author X and a reputable source Z. Amrit 23:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Verifiability

We should follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Here is an excerpt from this policy:

Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia.

Clearly, this applies to TM-ex associations. Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we provide a precise reference for each claim about negative effects of TM (from Amrit)

And the same for each "positive" one. (from Sethie)

not just a web page that links to several papers. I would like to remove any such a claim that do not have a precise reference. Sethie, I could put the reference for Dr Otis, but I would appreciate that you do it instead -- since it is your contribution. Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I will do it. I am learning how to do refferences. (from Sethie)

Introduction Paragraph

We need to come up with a set of guidelines for working on this article and stick tot hem. I had included some very basic information in the article abou the orgins of Transcendental Meditation and it was removed. The information was factual, well grounded in other encyclopedic information, and generally accepted. This information was essentially summed up in "Transcendental Meditation originates from Vedic schools of thought."

Moreover I think that its very silly that people keep putting History in the introduction. The Introduction should be short and explain what TM is not the history and how you feel about Transcendental Meditation today. The introduction paragraph is like an advertisement when it should be objective and explain what TM is quickly and provide a very short synoposis of the entire article. If you aren't familiar with what Transcendental Meditation IS then you should focus the information you have to contribute on sections you're more familiar with. I should note the introduction currently has more history than the history section.

This article will nver be complete until people begin to take this seriously and this starts with the Introduction.

--Dren 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Advertising TM-ex organizations

Similarly, this paragraph should be taken out. It is advertising the ex-TM organization. Moreover, it contains non supported statements (to justify the existence of this organization).

"Many cult researchers consider TM to be one of the largest contemporary cults. An organization called TM-ex exists for people who formerly practised and taught transcendental meditation. This organization provides support for those who were a part of the TM movement, and information on why they believe TM is a dangerous cult. One TM-ex claim is that TM is actually a form of hypnosis."

Amrit 03:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, you put in the TM-Ex. You take it out. As for the cult claim, I will find a respectable cult organization and cite them.

I like some of your re-organizing. Who knows, maybe between the two of us, we can come up with a neutral factual article?

Cheers! Sethie 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence is not supported.

"There are a number of questions about the validity and methodology of TM scientific research. Critics point out that nearly all pro-TM research on record was conducted by TM itself, or entities sponsored by TM. "

Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I will support that. (from Sethie)

This other sentence also is not supported.

"Also, evidence exists that meditation can lead to more mental problems in psychiatric patients."

Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You put it in there! You cite it or take it out yourself!

I think the TM is effecting your memory, you are starting to challenge your own edits. Sethie 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Splitting pro and con? Copyright?

Hi all, Re. the discussion points here (although they may not be valid anymore) a few thoughts:

• To have a good article with NPOV, a good amount of consensus is necessary. As that is not available here, maybe we could separate it in two sections--one pro, the other con? That would do away with the current strained style and all those words like "according to", "allegedly", etc. and would simply make the article more pleasant to read. Maybe a moderator could answer this or someone more familiar with Wiki customs and policies.
• Someone was doubting the copyright-free nature of the text. Well, I wrote/rewrote a good part (about half a year ago), without using TM literature, so you can rest assured about that. I'm thinking to add some more, like the difference between generic TM and TM as taught by Maharishi's Movement, but it'll take time. It would be good to have articles on the TM Movement and on transcendental consciousness as well ...
• A propos copyright: I'd like to ask the moderators to remove the external link to the web page with mantras and stuff. Just see this information as being protected by copyright, even though Maharishi doesn't send in lawyers. Would you include a link to a site showing source code belonging to Microsoft?
• One thing I find strange is how people who have never tried TM, think they can write or correct an article describing it. Few people would try such a thing on other topics they are unfamiliar with.
• Someone asked about research references, so I added a little phrase in the text pointing to an external link. Is it OK to do it that way?

Greetings, Ge' (13-4-05)

23-4-5, I decided to remove the external link to the list of mantras etc. Two days later, someone put it back. Just to avoid this situation, I'd prefer if a moderator decide on this. See my above proposal to divide the article in two parts.

Hi Ge, the best to start with is giving precedence, where a link to copyrighted material caused problems. As I wrote in the version history, it is very likely that just giving a link is covered by free speech. Otherwise 90% of all external links would have to be removed because almost any external content is copyrighted. -- mkrohn 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. you can sign your message by typing ~~~~

Re the link: I get the point. Although it's a special situation here: the linked site is more or less illegal, because it is publishing not its own copyrighted stuff, but other people's.

Anyway, I guess I'll have to write/rewrite some parts to make it clear why just using the right mantra does not make your meditation TM. The problem is: if I explain the mechanics, people who read it transcend less easily when they learn TM, because their mind is more in the way...

Any thoughts about this 'split-article' idea? Geke 15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Some extra stuff added to the site about stress, and research on the Maharishi Effect. As a regular TMer, and living in the UK TM group, I hopethat I have been able to maintain NPOV. With reference to the research quality, surely publication in independent peer reviewed journals gets brownie points?

Focus on the Introductory Paragraph

We need to come up with a set of guidelines for working on this article and stick tot hem. I had included some very basic information in the article about the orgins of Transcendental Meditation and it was removed. The information was factual, well grounded in other encyclopedic information, and generally accepted. If we're all going to keep going back and deleting and changing everything each of us says then we're never going to get this complete. A consensus on each individual section along with careful monitoring after a consensus is reached is essential for progress. This information was essentially summed up in "Transcendental Meditation originates from Vedic schools of thought."

Moreover I think that its very silly that people keep putting History in the introduction. The Introduction should be short and explain what TM is not the history and how you feel about Transcendental Meditation today. The introduction paragraph is like an advertisement when it should be objective and explain what TM is quickly and provide a very short synoposis of the entire article. If you aren't familiar with what Transcendental Meditation IS then you should focus the information you have to contribute on sections you're more familiar with. I should note the introduction currently has more history than the history section.

This article will never be complete until people begin to take this seriously and this starts with the Introduction.

Beyond my reaction above to how slowly this article is becoming worse and worse... I'd like to call everyone to do one thing and that is FOCUS ON THE INTRODUCTION, COME TO A CONSENSUS THERE FIRST.

Then once you've done this you should move on to History ;) which obviously an essential section. After that we should come to a consensus on the structure for the entire article and let people who are involved in each section be involved there...

We will make progress this way faster. I can't emphasize more that if we can't come up with an Introduction that is appropriate we will not be able to finish the actual content of the article.

--Dren 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

Proposed Variation on the December 24 version

The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM, is a form of meditation that was introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, an Indian spiritual teacher. It has become a worldwide movement, with two to six million people having learned the technique. The TM organization has founded an accredited university Maharishi International University, and at one point even had a political party, the Natural Law Party. Several universities and hundreds of respected peer-reviewed scientific journals [ have publihsed scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation over 35 years. In the last three years alone, you can find published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as The American Journal of Cardiology ( ), The American Journal of Hypertension ( ) and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation ( ). Funding from the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study Transcendental Meditation has totalled $21 million in federal research grants (including a new grant of $1.4 million) [3]. And now several US public schools are using Maharishi's TM to enhance education: TV News Video: [4], News article: [5]

In addition to citing online newspaper articles that report the studies, we should give the actual references.

Here is another proposal, which is shorter:

The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM, is a form of meditation that originates from the Vedic tradition, which is at the center of Hinduism. It was introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, an Indian spiritual teacher. It has become a worldwide movement, with more than five million people having learned the technique. The TM organization has founded an accredited university Maharishi International University, and at one point even had a political party, the Natural Law Party. It has received supports from public schools [6], governemental institutions [7] and scientific research [8].

I propose to move and integrate the following in the section Effects of TM.

Various top level institutions are interested in the documented effects of TM: Quote: "Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles department of psychology, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, and the Maharishi University of Management College of Maharishi Vedic Medicine in Fairfield, IA, randomly split 60 African-American people (at high risk) with high blood pressure into two groups. One learned transcendental meditation (TM) and practiced it for 20 minutes, twice a day. The other received standard heart disease prevention education. Seven months later, researchers used ultrasound to measure fatty deposits and the thickness of the participants' artery walls. The TM group had a decrease in artery wall thickness, which could reduce heart attack risk by up to 11 percent and stroke risk by up to 15 percent. Artery wall thickness increased in the education group (Journal: 'Stroke', year: 2000). There's "very strong evidence from this and other studies that meditation has health-promoting effects," says Prevention advisor John Astin, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. And benefits could extend to all ethnic groups."

Neutrality Vs Critics

Other proposed Introductory paragraphs have mentioned scientific research on the benefits of TM. This one goes further and mention grants and success in school. In the past, the attitude of Sethie (and perhaps of others) was that she could not accept that we mention all these pro-TM facts without mentioning the opponent-TM facts. In her opinion, the Neutrality policy meant that both sides should be equally represented. To avoid this issue, all pro-TM facts were removed from these previous intro paragraphs. However, this was before our new correct understanding of the Wikipedia policies, which require that we consider the Neutral point of view policy together with the Verifiability and the No orginal research policies. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that there should be at all costs a balance between the pro and non-pro viewpoints. The key policy to consider here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that every statement in Wikipedia must be supported by a reputable source (which is not the same as reputable authors).

Simple, natural, and easy-to-learn

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

I suspect that the real underlying issue here is the minimal respect that we show for the TM organization when we write about its teaching. My feeling is that if we write an article about TM, we should show some minimal respect for the TM organization. I know that some ex-TM'ers feel that it doesn't deserve much respect. They think the studies on TM are almost all biased by this organization, that this organization is not telling important truth, perhaps falsifying data, etc. This is their personal opinion, which they surely can corroborate by a few quotes from other ex-TM ers, usually vague and innapropriate quotes, but it doesn't matter how much lack of respect you have for an organization, this organization still deserve that we describe what it does in our society in a neutral way. Amrit 04:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proponents neutral phrase

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

Sounds good to me, other then the word "advertised," and add in a footnote leading to the studies.

Maybe, "The TM organization claims that practice of TM leads to.... and studies seem to confirm this or something like that

Sethie 08:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right about "advertised". The goal of this discussion should be to obtain a consensus on sentences that are as meaningful as possible, as we expect in an encyclopedia. The "advertised" was there to easily buy the agreement of eventual opponents, but the statement becomes less meaningful, perhaps not acceptable in an encyclopedia. It should be easy for every one to accept that it is simple, effortless and easy-to-learn. Maybe, the first sentence should simply be "It is a simple, effortless and easy-to-learn mental technique." I replaced "natural" with "effortless" because it is essentially what we mean by "natural" in TM: we let the nature of the mind proceeds by itself without making any effort, an easy fact to verify simply by asking any practitionner.

Amrit 17:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, it is not sufficient that an organization merely exists to justify that it can put its opinions every where it wants using NPOV as a pretext. NPOV does not mean that. Statements, especially when the goal is to contradict other statementts, must be well supported by reliable sources. In particular, the TM-ex organization and other similar organizations are not by themself reliable. They must provide studies that verify their claim, and these dispute that are based on published studies will be perfect in the Controversies section.

Amrit 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you reffering to? Sethie 18:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial interpretation of studies

Sethie, you wrote the sentences

They also claim that regular practice of TM leads to significant, cumulative benefits on all levels of life, including mind (Travis, Arenander & DuBois 2004), body (Barnes, Treiber & Davis 2001), behavior (Barnes, Bauza & Treiber 2003) and environment (Hagelin et al. 1999). Some of these claims have been confirmed by other scientific studies [2], while some have not. [3].

The previous sentences

The TM International Organization [1] claims that regular practice of TM leads to significant, cumulative benefits on all levels of life, including mind (Travis, Arenander & DuBois 2004), body (Barnes, Treiber & Davis 2001), behavior (Barnes, Bauza & Treiber 2003) and environment (Hagelin et al. 1999). Other scientific studies support that claim [2].

were perfectly objective.

>The NPOV I was reffering to was more the first sentence TM IS a simple, easy, etc. technique. I switched it to the TM organization CLAIMS.

I was careful to use the term "support" which is less strong than "confirm". It simply states in a neutral way the verifiable fact that some studies are there to support the claim. In contrast, your statement is controversial and has a style that suggests that some of the mentioned studies are incorrect. I refer to the "while some have not [3]."

For reference, the web page [3] is http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/Maharishi_Effect-mdefect.htm Amrit 12:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

>Ok... we can change the wording to say while some studies do not.

>It doesn't work for me to start off an article saying there is scientific proof for something when there are also scientific "proof" that says the opposite of what is supposidly proven. See my links below.

All the mentioned studies that support the benefits of TM have been published in prestigious journals that use a neutral peer review process. None of these published studies have been rebuted by other research.

>Maybe, see: http://minet.org/Documents/TM-research-review

In contrast, the web page [3] that you cite don't provide any reference to any published paper. They do mention one paper, but provide no reference except a link to trancenet.org that is obsolete (the domain was taken by someone else that sales music!). This in itself is certainly enough to go ahead and reverse the sentences to their original version. You will need to support your attempt to discredit the research about the benefits of TM with much better references. I suggest that we remove your attempt to discredit the research on TM, but I am polite -- I wait to see what you have to say.

>Thanks for your politeness, yeah I knew that was kinda shaky.... >Try this one: http://minet.org/research.html

I want to explain to you the situation more concretely. The web page [3] incorrectly describes the Maharishi Effect. This is the problem when you use non published "scientific" material. Such material often incorrectly report the work of others, etc. In this case, they assume that the Maharishi Effect is cumulative, but the TMO doesn't claim that. A cumulative effect would mean that if some number of people meditate in a city, every day there should be less crime than the previous day, even if the number of meditators does not increase. Never the TMO made such a claim. The Maharishi effect only says that the number of crimes decreases, if the number of meditators increases (above some threshold). For example, the web page [3] mentions that the crime rate increased in Iowa between 1991 and 1998 and incorrectly states that it is in contradiction with the Maharishi Effect. They are wrong. I don't have the exact numbers, but I know that roughly the number of people doing the TM-Sidhi program together in Iowa actually steadily decreased during that period (because other groups were created elsewhere, etc,.) The authors of this web site should write an article and try to publish it!

>Your opinion and my opinion about the ME is beyond the scope of a Wiki article... let's leave it to the scientists and scholars. Here is some peer review of the ME: http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/Maharishi_effect-mdefect-peer.htm

Please, I would really appreciate if next time you do a careful job to provide serious references. I do not have the time to keep reading rubbish scientific materials.

>Welcome to Wiki. It is all about sorting and peer review, you bouncing off me, me bouncing off you, in a huge group and maybe eventually some concensus gets reached.

>I don't know what you mean by "keep" reading, this is the first scientific (rubbish or not) that I have posted.

>Hope the above links are a little more respectable and to your likings, here are a few more: http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-tmresearch-biochemistry.htm http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-tmresearch-serotonin.htm http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-tmresearch-unique.htm

>Here are some abstracts which are critical of TM research METHODS: http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-tmresearch-problems.htm

>The bottom line as I see it: TM has "lots" of studies that back up it's claims TM has "plenty" of studies that don't support it's claims TM has some theories about how the universe works and how we can be in harmony with the universe TM has some allegations and controversies around the organization.

>And I am working towards, with your and other people's help, an article which contains all these sides to it.

Hi Sethie,

Ok you provided published studies (amongst non published ones). Now, it will be useful to classify them in terms of which specific studies and associated conclusion is being disputed. For each class, you should provide the few best studies. Otherwise, I will pick the one I want to discredit the whole thing and that will be sufficient to remove it. I don't have the time now, but I will sooner or later.

Amrit 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"For each class, you should provide the few best studies." If you feel inspired to do so, please do.

"Otherwise, I will pick the one I want to discredit the whole thing

? I honestly don't understand what you are saying. What "one?" What "whole thing?" What "one do you want?"

"and that will be sufficient to remove it."

Suffecient in YOUR opinion. This is not a Sethie and Amrit article. If you and I can't reach concsnsus, we bring in other people.

I am not a TM research expert. I just know that your statement or view on TM "None of these published studies have been rebuted by other research" is just not supported by the facts there is research out there from "respetable people" who say otherwise. Sethie 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am saying that I will check your claim that the studies that I have cited have been rebuted.

No need, as I never claimed that, you did. You brought the word "rebute" to the conversation: "None of these published studies have been rebuted by other research."

I doubt very seriously any of those articles would claim to "rebute" any other study, I don't think science works that way. I believe most of them would say, "Hey, this is what WE found."

Nowhere did I say that these studies rebuted specific studies you present, as I said in the current version of the article, they found the opposite of what the TM studies claimed.

TM claims enhanced psychological health- more then one of these studies says TM can be/is potentially dangerous to mental health.

TM claims to increase grades and creativity- more then one of these studies or refferences says TM does not increase school performance or even decreases it.

Also, you should be more explicit and tell me, for each paper that you believe has been rebuted, which papers has rebuted it.

see above

This is not too much to ask. It would make your point strong, if this was possible. Most likely, the papers that you (indirectly) cite do not even cite the papers that I cite. I read quickly one abstract and it was not even a statistical analysis: they just followed a few meditators and we do not even know how these meditators have been selected. This kind of studies are not significant, and they do not rebute much.

Hmmm you went from "one abstract" to "this kind of studieS," from singular to plural, one study=one study.

Also, you raise methodological questions with the ONE study. It is not your or my job to comment on the studies, or to try and evaluate them, that would be origonal research. Post it on your personal page.

I don't have a Ph.D. If I did, I'd be writing the articles that Wikipedians would then be SUMMARIZING.

Sethie 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Amrit 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

>Hmmm you went from "one abstract" to "this kind of studieS," from singular to plural, one study=one study

Of course, I did! I said this kind of studies with this one as an example. I didn't say that they were all in that same category, but the fact that there is one in that category does rise a question mark for the others. Don't you worry about it? You should, if you are objective. Amrit 01:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Understanding studies to cite them correctly

My appologies for even engaging you on this topic, this is not a wiki issue.

You or me evaluating the validity of studies is called "origonal research" and is what wiki is the opposite of.

I am not here to evaluate studies, pro-TM or con-TM. My job as a wiki editor is to report on what OTHERS have found, said or done. Sethie 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that you misinterpret what no original research means!

Maybe. I said that YOUR commentary "we do not even know how these meditators have been selected" is entering into origonal research.

It does not mean that you are allowed to cite primary source the way you want. I have the right to check if you misuse some primary research. Certainly, you are not telling me that it is irrelevant what your primary sources say!

correct, I never said that. I am saying it is irrelevant what YOU (or I) have to say about them, other then just reporting on them.

So, I will look at what they have done and I will make sure that we report adequatly what they have done. I the studies followed a few meditators, I have the right to report it. It will be a verifiable and very pertinent fact.

I mean... first off- which study are you reffering to so I can even discuss it with you?

Secondly, if you want to report on that particular study, go for it!

I am wondering if one solution is for me to instead of cite these webpages, but to cite the specific study.

Amrit 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Sethie 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sethie,

I removed again your statements about the incorrectness of the studies on the benefits of TM.

It is utterly impossible for you to have removed my statements about the incorrectnes of the TM studies, since I never said they were incorrect!

You say yourselve that the studies that you cite do not even cite the studies that I cite. So, how do you know that you are not extrapolating.

You are extrapolating that I said that. I never said the studies you cited were incorrect.

The study that you cite might be valid and still not invalidate the studies that I cite. For example, the studies that you cite might be about specific cases, specific context, etc., and there will be no contradiction. Therefore, I don't think it is adequate to cite these studies as you did, even if they are published. They could certainly be city in a different way, perhaps in the controversies section, but we need to know better what is their actual content, not to validate or invalidate them, but to cite them correctly.

Amrit 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I will try agian. Sethie 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All areas of life

The levels mind, body, behavior and environment are considered broad levels of life that each includes many aspects of life. I see these four levels as exhaustive of all aspects of life. For example, anything that has to do with taxes belong to one of these levels. It is not because we say that the studies have covered all levels of life that we mean that they have specifically covered every single aspect of life. Amrit 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that the above paragraph was there before the RFC of Sethie. Amrit

Sethie, I admit that a more accurate statement would be in all areas of the list of broad areas (mind, body, behavior, environment) which cover all aspects of life. They might not be all the areas of life, because you can find subareas, combine them, etc, but alltogether they cover all aspects. Yes it is true that that there are many particular aspects of life that are not covered directly by scientific studies on TM. Nevertheless, it remains true that there are diverse studies in each of the four mentioned areas. This suggests that all other aspects that are not directly studied are nevertheless improved with TM. There is something here that deserves to be mentioned. I will find a way to say it, which I hope will please you. It is not important enough to bother other people with this. But, sure, it will be great to have contributions on this or other areas of this article. Amrit 20:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pure consciousness paragraph

current version: According to the proponents of TM, the practice helps in integrating into our life the "field of pure consciousness" or "the field of pure intelligence", a field that every human being allegedly possesses in common, and which allegedly interacts with one's daily choices. Proponents also assume that in daily existence, humans of flesh and blood have not integrated this field into their life as much as they could. Since this field of pure consciousness allegedly is only progressive and supports only the good, people integrating this field in their life should spontaneously (without the need of any intuitive or non intuitive intellectual understanding) more readily behave well. This leans on a belief that it is desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly, in line with arguments proposed by Plato's Socrates in Meno and in The Republic.

The last sentence doesn't connect for me with the rest of the paragraph.....

The main idea of the paragraph is- TM connects one to a reality which is life enhancing and in connecting to that, peolpe "naturally" or spontaneously begin to act more harmoniously.

However, what does this have to do with it being "desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly?"

I say we take out the last sentence... other thoughts?

SAT! Sethie 07:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it has some relevance. I would like to keep it. Amrit 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Section on Criticisms and controversies

This entire section is inadequate. It would be better to distribute the pro and the con in the article. Some statements in this section might not be interpreted as negative by some: what is a critic for one might be a compliment for another. So, it would be more neutral to simply state the facts in a neutral way when it fits in the article. If we only include material that is suported by a reputable source, it will look acceptable to pro-TM. Of course, it is not enough that all statements are supported by a reputable source. A good balance is necessary. One key point that the opponent of TM should keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not the place to compensate for what they might feel is not enough accepted in reputable sources. If you feel that you know some truth about TM then first try to have it published in a reputable source, without the need of a debate in Wikipedia, and then this publication will be acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Amrit 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The review of 75 studies and Dr Otis study

I read one of the paper on claimed negative side effects of TM.

Alberto Perez-De-Albeniz and Jeremy Holmes, MEDITATION: CONCEPTS, EFFECTS AND USES IN THERAPY, International Journal of Psychotherapy, Mar2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p

It is the first cited paper in http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm. It is a review of 75 studies. Here is a key sentence in that paper, which was taken at the end of the section that discusses the claimed negative side effects.

"None of the studies reviewed tried to disentangle the effects of meditation per se from the influence of the presenting problem or/and premorbid personality of the subjects."

For example, these negative side effects might come from the fact that at the time of these studies some people who had strong problems, etc. started to do transcendental meditation.

Some might.

Well, even the people that are against the TM organization says that TM attracted young people that were in this kind of situations (heavy drugs, etc.)

However, TM claims to decrease depression, balance the brain, bring peace, etc. If this was actually true, one would think that pre-existing conditions would be DECREASED.

The side effects would be associated with their previous hystory. The quoted sentence above says that none of the studies that exhibited negative side effects have attempted to separate this kind of factors from the genuine effects of TM. Nowaday people who start TM are usually strong people.

Far out, I did not realize the TM movement was now only teaching it to strong people- please write about their new screening process.

Therefore, if the same type studies were repeated now, they would not exhibit these negative effects.

Amrit 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Sethie 02:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Some might.

Well, even the people that are against the TM organization says that TM attracted many young people that were in this kind of situations (heavy drugs, etc.).

However, TM claims to decrease depression, balance the brain, bring peace, etc. If this was actually true, one would think that pre-existing conditions would be DECREASED.

You are right. It seems that TM is not a magical cure. Some specific conditions might remain for quite some times. Some of us (meditators or not) are quite stressed. However, here the issue is whether TM has negative side effects, not whether or not it cures every thing after a few weeks or months.

Bingo!

Far out, I did not realize the TM movement was now only teaching it to strong people- please write about their new screening process.

I didn't say there was a screening process. It just happens that different kind of people begin TM now,

Understood. Do you have any information on that?

but anyway it is not the main point. The main points is that they did not consider the prior condition of the meditators in these studies. So, we don't really know if the observed negative conditions were created by TM.

Amrit 05:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What we know is that in this study 63% of people who practiced meditation experienced: relaxation-induced anxiety and panic; paradoxical increases in tension; less motivation in life; boredom; pain; impaired reality testing; confusion and disorientation; feeling 'spaced out'; depression; increased negativity; being more judgmental; feeling addicted to meditation; uncomfortable kinaesthetic sensations; mild dissociation; feelings of guilt; psychosis-like symptoms; grandiosity; elation; destructive behavior; suicidal feelings; defenselessness; fear; anger; apprehension; and despair.

Read the next study down- it is about how the longer people meditated, the worse their conditions became. Sethie 06:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read it. It contains two long paragraphs that explain that, actually, the people who continued TM longer had more problems before starting TM. So, clearly, differences existed even before people started TM. The study was only based on the subjective self-evaluation of the meditators. So many subjective factors can influence the response of the meditators. No standardized tests were conducted. In contrast, the studies that exhibit the positive effects of TM are based on standardized tests.

Amrit 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your intepretation of it- why don't you go write a paper? Sethie 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you suggest that my last comment qualifies as original research. However, I justed stated facts that can easily be verified. No original research does not mean no research. Secondary research where you explore published studies, understand their content, make sure there is no misinterpretation is actually encouraged in Wikipedia. I don't know yet how this will show up in the article. I want to avoid a controversial tone, but the facts themselve must be taken into account.

Amrit 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also noticing you are evaluating and looking through studies I have not and probably won't, so...

When you are ready to discuss the actual article, let me know Sethie 21:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the paper that you suggested that I read:

Adverse Effects of Transcendental Meditation by Dr. Leon S. Otis. http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=558

which is the second paper in the list given at http://behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm. Since you cite it, you should at the least read it!!!

Amrit 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't cite it, I quoted from it. If I was to give a summary, reading it would be handy. However, I used a direct quote from it: "in fact, they suggest that TM may be hazardous to the mental health of a sizable proportion of the people who take up TM." Sethie 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to simplify the following

"In the results of this survey, those who continued the practice of TM for more than six months were less positive about the effect of TM than the dropouts. As a possible explanation, Dr. Otis presented evidences that "... dropouts and those who continue the practice of TM may differ in some fundamental way(s) prior to learning TM. [...] The latter appeared to have more problems before starting TM than the former." Other studies indicate that the probability of occurrence of these so called adverse effects is higher among psychiatric populations."

but we will have to remove the quotes. I can do that. Essentially, in these quotes, Dr. Otis says that there are evidences that the negative side effects in the survey are related to prior conditions. This reduces the negative impacts on TM, but it is in the paper. We cannot hide it. Welcome to the world of NPOV!

Amrit 08:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I dig NPOV. I totally acknowledge that the study says that TM exasperates pre-existant mental illnesses. And that the rate of this occuring is HIGHER in pre-existing.

So, Mr.NPOV can you acknowledge the other half of his findings- that it also causes mental illness. Nowhere did he find that ALL the illnesses were caused by pre-existing.

The key word is RELATED. He doesn't say ONLY in psyshiatric paitents. He says it is HIGHER in them. Cheers! Sethie 08:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, we did progress. However, the references to the psychiatric population is not the main point that brought Dr. Otis to propose an alternative explanation to the adverse side effects. He wrote two paragraphs, which are not about these studies on psychiatric population, that explain that his main observation can be explained by prior conditions. Of course, it is an alternative explanation, but it is enough. When you consider all the positive results about TM, a prior condition (not only the extreme case of psychiatric problem) is the simplest explanation for the adverse side effects. It is corroborated by the fact that these adverse effects occur even more in the extreme case of a psychiatric population. Amrit 10:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

German study

Sethie, you just added this one:

"The German government commisioned a study to evaluate some of the claims of the TM movement. They found that while practicing TM, 76% of the meditators, adverse psychological side effects occured, including: depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation. A quarter of the participants had a nervous breakdown. [[9]]"

It is laughable: they say "A quarter of the participants had a nervous breakdown."

It is laughable if you are sadistic.....

However, this case is special. The goverment of Germany was involved. So, we can guess that it was a highly political context, perhaps of religious origins.

You can guess whatever you want....

What would you conclude if their findings only hold in Gernamy?

IF you can show that is the case, I'll comment on it.

Anyway, the studies might have been done and reported honestly. If that is the case, again, we will find out an explanation, perhaps the same as in the study of Dr. Otis.

Amrit 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Otis reported a 70% experience of adverse mental side effects, Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy found a 63%, and the german study a 75%. I think I see a pattern developing.

Perhaps the explination you will find is: TM may be hazardous to the mental health of a sizable proportion of the people who take up TM.

Sethie 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see another pattern. These studies all failed to consider prior conditions. As pointed above, this proposed pattern is supported by a review of 75 studies. Moreover, we considered one specific study in details, the DR Otis study, and he himself provides evidence that the prior conditions were different in those with more of these so called adverse effects Amrit 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These so called adverse effects might actually just be the effect of a natural attempt of the physiology to get rid of anomalies that were already there before the meditators started TM. They would actually be, in a way, positive effects. I know that critics consider that this viewpoint is only a way to hide negative effects, but we have to look at the mechanisms that are actually involved before deciding. We have to consider the facts, the mechanisms involved, consider all the studies, etc. before deciding. Another important point that we have neglected so far is the fact we have not yet considered the methods used in these studies. The methods used in these studies that are not published, etc. are very likely to be much less rigourous than the methods used in the studies on the benefits of TM. This is why it is very important that we restrict ourselve to studies that went through neutral review processes. This is also why it is very important to have access to these studies in english. Amrit 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No reputable source for the German study

Some people confuse a web page that discusses a study with a reference for that study. The web page http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/tmgerman.htm is not the study, and it does not even provide a reference to that study. This web page contains excerpt from TM-EX Newsletters, Fall 1990, Spring 1991, Summer 1991, Summer 1992. All critics on TM come from these small groups of TM-ex, but this is another story. This web page is an example of the lack of rigours of these critics: they have a complete web page about a study and they don't even provide a reference to it! I start to think that perhaps they are afraid that we will actually read it, and see how insignificant it is. Where is this study? Amrit 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The web site http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3927890073/028-6593689-7786943 that was proposed by Marco Khrown as a reference to the German study advertizes a german book on a completely different subject. Perhaps he thought we was funny. Amrit 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

After some research, I found

The Various Implications Arising from the Practice of Transcendental Meditation: An Empirical Analysis of Pathogenic Structures as an Aid in Counselling. Bensheim, Germany: (Institut fur Jugend und Gesellschaft, Ernst-Ludwig-Strasse 45, 6140) The Institute for Youth and Society, 1980. (129 pages)

Internal reports of research institute have very little value in science. Moreover, it is complicated to obtain this report: there is no web site or email address for the institute, which might not even be a research institute. The report might be written in german. In view of the fact that it is important that the editors check the facts and that this study is not easily available, in view of the fact that it might be written in germam and that we (the editors) do not all speak german, in view of the fact it is a non published internal report, I would like to request that the opponent to TM propose another paper to make their point. This attitude on our side will be an incentive for the researchers that critics TM to try to publish their paper, to make them available, and this should be appreciated on both sides. From the point of view of the proponent, it will be an improvement because it is hard to fight against a ghost and not reliable to consider a paper that was not submitted to a neutral review process and published. From the point of view of the opponents, if they believe in there studies, it is very important that they are submitted to standard review processes, and easily available, etc. Amrit 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disapoint you, but here is a Ph.D who reviewed the German Study: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_target_college.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs) .

Dear Sethie, the wikipedia policies are carefully written. I enjoyed reading these policies. They did a very good job, perhaps based on years of experience of so many editors in different editorial contexts. It is useful to undestand them well. I am sure that you appreciate this as much as I do. Please read #Wikipedia policies to see where I come from. They explain that it is irrelevant that the author has a Ph.D. They give one particular example where an author, a Ph.D, says in some non reputable source that one of his own papers, which is published in a reputable source, is actually rubbish. Since he is the author of the paper, we might think that this retracting statement of this author should fit in Wikipedia. Actually, it does not because it was not published in a reputable source. Before this retracting statement can be included in Wikipedia, we must first wait that the author publishes his retracting statement in a reputable source, which is usually the same source as for the original paper. The key point here is that it is not the respectability of the author(s) that matter in the Verifiability policy, but the reputation of the source (i.e., of the publisher). Amrit 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did check the source. It is the worst case I ever seen of lack of neutrality. The author at the time of writing was the director of the institution that maintain the periodical and he was also the main editor of this periodical. Here is an excerpt from their web site:

"Cultic Studies Review maintains a distinguished editorial advisory board, which advises the editor, Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., on submitted articles and news items."

Note that the institution (the publisher) is the The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), formerly the American Family Foundation (AFF) http://www.cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_aff/aff_about.htm. The author was the director of AFF at the time of writing. This is an organization with a very specific agenda strongly controled by the author. Amrit 22:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the agenda of the ICSA is cult practice, but the subject of the section where this study is cited in the article is the effect of TM per se. Amrit 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Amrit 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another: From the National Association against Health Fraud! http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1991/7-8.html

Here's another (the article is in spanish, but the citation is in english): http://www.comportamental.com/articulos/39.htm

So, it's in. Sethie 19:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. In view of the fact that you have a long history of providing very dubious sources, I believe that you have now to provide much more detailed information about them before we can accept them. The Wikipedia policies say "check your source", and they say that it is the responsibility of the editor that made an edit to check his source. I will now take out this German study again, and note that I did a lot of work, which I should not even have to do, before taking this action. It is you that must carefully check your sources. Amrit 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources, with weblinks, hence I do not understand why that is too much work for you. It is going in, and if you remove it again, I will ask for a RfC. Sethie 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that you understand the Verifiability policy. Actually, at numerous occasions you have shown that you do not understand it. So, it would be good that you comment on how the Verifiability policy apply to this case. Please put this in the context of my comments, so that I can see that you considered my view. The key point is that the german paper itself does not have a reputable source. It was a report in some, perhaps governemental, organization for youth with no peer review. Perhaps you could cite a paper in some reputable source that cites this german study, but then you must restrict yourself to what is stated in this other paper. It is your responsibility to check your source for these other papers. You proposed three papers that cite the german study, I think. I took the first one and (see above) I have shown that the source was absolutely not neutral: the author was the main editor of the periodical and the director of the association, with a very specific agenda, that publishes this periodical. It appears that you just made a quick search over the web and cited whatever you found without checking the validity of the sources. So, since the Wikipedia policy states that you are responsible to check your sources, I think that I am not asking too much that this time you guarantee to me that you have carefully checked your sources by telling me a few words about these sources. I am giving you some time to do that, but this german study is not going to stay in if you don't show to me that you checked the sources that you provide for it. Otherwise it is nonsense: you will keep putting every thing you find in the web, which is relatively easy, and I will do for you the hard work of checking the sources -- no way! Amrit 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that I have written a letter on December 21 to the institute where the german study was reported to obtain a copy of the report. Of course, if it is in german this will be useless. This should not be considered as an acknowledgement of the reputation of the source. I do that for my own original research, and the result of this is for myself or perhaps some publication somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. Original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Lumiere 00:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I admire your gumption. If you get tired of waiting, here is the online version: http://web.archive.org/web/20030610051917/trancenet.org/research/toc.shtml

Whoops. Not all of it is online... you will be able to read some of it there though!

Sethie 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts are completely useless. They can extract a biased viewpoint. They do not describe the study itself or miss important aspects. Thanks anyway!Lumiere 04:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the end. It says "Full text begins here", with link to http://web.archive.org/web/20030804124209/www.trancenet.org/research/chap1.shtml --GangofOne 02:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There was two chapters out of seven, but maybe the 5 others will come... Note that I do not intend to discuss this study in this article. It was not published, but I was curious. From what I see, it is very much like Dr Otis study. It was a questionary sent to 67 meditators. Lumiere 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a study of 67 meditators - it was a study of 67 people with a direct or indirect connection to TM. Only 27 were actually people who had practised TM and the authors clearly state that all had a negative attitude towards TM. I have posted a fuller comment with link to the study done in 1980 by a youth group under "More on the German study". One could just as well find 67 people with good experience of satanism and post it up as a valid study!!! Paul Davis

Was it included in the review of 75 studies?

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

In any case, was this study published somewhere? Was there a peer review process? There are so many unjustified critics, unsupported claims, that try to discredit the scientific methods used in studies on the benefits of TM. It will be a strict minimum that the few studies against TM have at the least undergo a peer review process! Right now, I suspect that they are published in books that are edited by TM-ex. Amrit 04:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the German study: Self-published source

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. A person or an organization website (or any other self-published source) cannot be used as a source, unless the information is about the person or the organization. Even then the sourced content can only be included in a WP article about that person or that organization. They give the example of the StormFront (a white activist organization) website. --Lumière 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In a study, called "the Various Implications Arising From The Practice of Transcendental Meditation,", conducted by the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT Ernst-Ludwig-Straße 45 6140 Bensheim which received some funding from the BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR JUGEND, FAMILIE UND GESUNDHEIT, 76% of the participants developed adverse mental side-effects including: depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation. 25% experienced a nervous breakdowns and 20% experienced suicidial feelings. Only 9% of the these participants had received theraputic care previous to this study. There conclusion was: "Psychological illness already present before the TM phase worsened considerably. TM can cause mental illness or at the very least prepare the way for the onset of mental illness." [10]. The study group was 67 persons with direct or indirect connection with TM. 27 of the group had practised TM, with the others either parents or spouses of a practitioner. According the paper, the subjects all either reported a negative experience with the practice of TM or had rejected the organization of the TM and its representatives.[11]

This is the paragraph that was removed. Moreover, the Skeptic organization website only reported that study without any form of review. The reputability of the skeptic organization website as a publisher can reasonably be disputed and we will need a consensus about whether or not it is a reputable source before we can accept it for inclusion. Typically website do not count as a reputable source. In other words, the report of the Skeptic organization can also be considered as a self-published source: it is their own report in their own website. They do not count as a valid third-party publisher. --Lumière 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond just wrong, you don't understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This did not help me to change my mind. --Lumière 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The full version of the study only seems generally available at www.agpf.de - a German anti-cult website - which has no connection with the authors of the original study. The Inst for Youth etc was a christian youth group - the group may well still exist but does not have its own website. It seems there were only very limited copies of this DIN A4 brochure and it is no longer available from the authors. - Paul

The JAMA papers

I didn't wish to bring out any more TM dirty laundry, however Lumiere keep pushing.... so here goes. Is the Journal of the American Medical Assoication reputable enough for you? Sethie 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do provide the details. By the way, please focus on the specific issues that we are discussing, consider the content of this discussion and stop making implicit vague accusations. Amrit 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

It is cute the way you like to explain and put your own spin on things, and totally irrelevant. Sethie 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I can't believe how many false and misleading statements are made in the above. Wow! Where do I start?

1) Deepak (not Deepack) Chopra is NOT the main author of the deceptive TM article in JAMA. Hari Sharma is the lead author. And Dr. Sharma has remained one of Maharishi's highest ranking scientists. Chopra -- who at the time was Mararishi's annointed "Lord of Immortality" -- left the movement in 1992 or 1993. He had been president of Maharishi's American Association for Ayurvedic Medicine and had been president of MAPI, Inc -- the movement's marketing company for Maharishi Ayurveda products. (All of this is well documented in my Oct. 2, 1991 JAMA article.)

2) Lumiere asks, is it Chopra or the TM organization that had a conflict of interest? Lumiere knows that my JAMA article not only documented extensive conflicts of interests for all three authors of the MAV article, it documented numerous examples of the TM movement's deceptive scientific claims. The article is six pages in JAMA and only part of it deals with the three authors' conflicts of interest. (I cannot believe Lumiere doesn't know this.)

4) My JAMA article primarily focused on false, deceptive, and misleading science that was coming out of the TM movement -- not just on the author's conflict of interests. (Those conflicts hardly filled six JAMA pages!)

5) I'm not aware of any "issues" that "go beyond the expertise of JAMA." Perhaps Lumiere should illuminate what those issues are and explain her reasons for this statement.

6) I know of no studies on TM published that were published in JAMA since my 1991 article. Lumiere claims that JAMA published at least two research reports on the benefits of TM. I just did a search on Pubmed and found no such articles. I challenge her to provide the citations of any such article or else to withdraw that claim.

Askolnick 22:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

James Randi's book

I did provide a few words to explain the removal of James Randi story about the Maharishi effect. They were given in the Edit summary field at the time of the removal.

The basic point

The main reason is that the book did not go through any scientific review mechanism. It does not even contain one reference to a paper published in a peer review journal! Even if such references were listed, it would not mean much. However, it shows that James Randi, a magician ("the Amazing Randi"), did not even try to make it looks like a scientific contribution.

The second reason is that the story is about a claim of a former MUM scientist that is not also published. If you read his book, you will see that he refers to a discussion at a conference for which we have no record. We have to take his words!

In contrast, the subject that is debated here is the Maharishi effect for which we have several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Thefore, this is completely against the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The book is not published in a reputable source and the story is about a fact that is also not available in a reputable source.

Note that the book contains many other stories about TM. I was curious, so I got hold of this book. If you read the book, you will see that "The Amazing Randi" did not even believe in the EEG studies on coherence -- this was in 1982, 24 years ago, -- we must say though. He claimed that the coherence pattern was a trick related to the instrument used, not a genuine phenomena! Today, EEG is used all over the place to succesfully study coherence in different kind of meditations, not just in TM. However, it would be unfair not to give credit to Maharishi who supported pioneer work in this area.

To conclude, I do not really recommand that you read the book. As I try to explain above, you will spend your time in a better way if you read more reliable sources. Wise people care about sources. This is why Wikipedia should maintain a high level with only contributions that have a reputable source, like a true well researched encyclopedia. Lumiere 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Thank you for a prime example of origonal research, your evaluation of Randi as an unreputable source... in this case an unreputable source on... Randi. :)

Again, you show that you do not understand the Wikipedia policies, especially the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Here are a few relevant excerpts of the Verifiability policy:

"Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." (emphasis of last phrase is NOT mine).

"For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it would be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper." (last emphasis is mine)

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, a complement to the verifiability policy.

"Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about scientific experiments, including medical studies. The best scientific journals are peer-reviewed, which means that independent experts in the field are asked to (usually anonymously) review articles before they are published. This usually results in corrections and improvement, sometimes substantial. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report questionable (or perhaps merely unimportant, in the opinion of the editors) results."

Clearly, in the expression "reputable source" in the Verifiability policy the source is not the author, but the publisher! Therefore, it is not the respectability of Randi that is the issue here. There was no need to evaluate Randi. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for your detour around EEG land, which of course has nothing to do with the current version of the article.

Actually, here is a section taken from Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, a complement to the Wikipedia verifiability policy:

Evaluating sources

• Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.
• Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.

(last emphasis is mine). So, you see that evaluating sources is not considered against the Wikipedia:no original research policy, and is actually necessary. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The only question we need to look at is this: did Randi claim to investigate Maharishi Effect claims? What were his findings?

I agree. For example: if Bush says something about X then we hardly need a peer reviewed article of Bush in order to include this statement in the WP article about X. -- mkrohn 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true! If the statement is a claim that some scientific results are incorrect, it does not matter that the author is the president of the United state or the pope, or the Amazing Randi, etc., the source must be a reputable scientific publisher. Here is an excerpt of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory."

I think it is reasonable to extend the above ... No, actually no need to extend it. The point here is that a scientific claim requires a source that is reputable in science. Of course, if the article was about Randi, it would be a different story, but this article is not about James Randi and I am not interested that we include a section about James Randi in this article-- it does not fit in. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you Sethie. In the above sentence, you only consider the author, Randi, and his statement. You are ignoring the most important: the source. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ANY thing else is Lumiere on his soap box trying to twist and bend things. The rest is origonal research, i.e. your thoughts about someone else's claims.

I think that I already answered that. Checking sources is required and not against the Wikipedia:no original research policy. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sethie's questions

So, does Randi claim that he investigated the claims? And what did he find?

Please do not answer any other question for right now, let's go one step at a time. Sethie 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is your request that I only answer the very specific questions that you ask above? Is that it? We all know that you and I and every one that read Randi's book (or an account of it) know the answers to these two questions. Perhaps, you simply want that I explain what you would like that we include in the article, which is contained in these answers. So, to please you and also because it is good communication to show that we have listen to the other party, I will explain it. So, here it is:

Randi claims that he investigated Dr. Rabinoff's claims. Randi says that he found them to be incorrect.

I believe this is what you would like that we include in the article. Are you happy? Did we accomplish the first step? So, what is the next step? Are we ready now to look at the Wikipedia policies and see how they apply? I am very much looking forward that we start to discuss these policies in the context of your proposal. Otherwise, we will not progress. I still have some hope, but maybe I am naive. Lumiere 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Staying within Wikipedia policies

Your only niavity would be assuming that the policies are in your favor in this position.

So, your move. Make ONE point. Raise ONE doubt. Ask ONE question. Sethie 08:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you made many points above, now that it is my turn, I should now reply to them. See above. I corrected your and Marco lack of understanding of the Wikipedia policies. I could not do that before because you insisted that I only answer your last questions. Please note that I always refer to the Wikipedia policies. Lumiere 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have listed a bunch of policies, most of which are not grounds for exclusion.

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

You added in your own Lumiere policy, which is nowhere found on Wiki: "I think it is reasonable to extend the above to controversial claims that contradict other peer-reviewed scientific results. These controversial claims should have a source that is at least as reputable than the sources of the results that they contradict. "

So now that you cannot use Wiki policies to exclude the information, you make up your own, and pretend they are wiki policies. Nice try. Sethie 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia policies and reputable scientific source: starting to go nowhere

Only in Lumiere's world does something HAVE to go through scientific peer review in order to be included. Please show me ANYWHERE in wiki policy that it says this. Sethie 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not "something" but "scientific content", yes. I already pointed out the relevant paragraphs (see above). Besides, James Randi's book is not even a scientific publication, peer-reviewed or not. This means that the editor did not have at all to be concerned with scientific quality. We can ask those who are currently working on these policies. Lumiere 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt to not answer my question.

Please show me where in Wiki policy it says something with "scientific content" is ONLY a valid source if published in peer reviewed scientific publication. Sethie 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase something with "scientific content" is ONLY a valid source ... shows your sloppiness, which makes this discussion non productive. The article or its content cannot be the source. The source is the publisher. However, the key point is that you have a very bad argument if it is that you require that your exact wording must be found in the policies. If you were acting in good faith, you would not have this kind of argument. I already given the relevant paragraphs. Lumiere 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Going nowhere

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

You lost me. What are you talking about with your "Lumiere's policies"? Lumiere 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Challenges to the scientific validity of TM Research

The following paragraph should be taken out.

"There are a number of questions about the validity and methodology of TM scientific research. Critics point out that nearly all pro-TM research on record was conducted by TM itself, or entities sponsored by TM. Dr. Dennis Roark , former MIU Dean of Faculty and head of Physics Department, said that during his time there, evidence which was negative or inconclusive was suppressed, and only data favorable to the conclusion was selected"

There is only one reference provided for the first sentence and it is just the opinion of someone who wrote a book. The second sentemce is a vague accusation with no proof from someone that was perhaps fired by MIU. Moreover, even if it was about some real facts, without the details it is not possible to draw a neutral conclusion. Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, the 2nd sentence is a direct quote from a physicist and someone who worked within the TM organization. Try again. (from Sethie)

And I will cite the first sentence too. (from Sethie)

My point is exactly that not all quotes justify in an article. If this was an article about the integrity of the TM organization, perhaps this quote would be suitable. I know that you seems to think of this article as a debate about the integrity of TM. It is not. This is not a court of law where we must hear witnesses. Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What is certain is that you think I think that. That much we can agree on. (from Sethie)

So- you want to take out a quote, by a scientist, and a former TM employee which challenges the overall validty of TM research... because his statement ALSO challenges the integrity of the TM organization?

Sethie 07:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

First, it does not challenge at all the overall validity of TM research. A lot of research about TM were not conducted at MIU. Also, a lot of research used data that are publicly available. I want to remove this quote because it is an unproven accusation, which as I just explained, is beside the point. Amrit 08:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

here's a fact, Jack: A scientist and a former staff member of the TM organization, and someone who was involved in SOME TM research said: x,y,z.

Nowhere do I assert that what he said is true, merely that he said it. If you don't like them, go get a Ph.D and write a thesis disproving his ideas. Sethie 08:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understood your point, but I still disagree. Not all facts are acceptable in an article, especially the facts of the kind X said Y. Otherwise, instead of saying Y directly, I just have to look for someone X who said Y. When Y is a statement about a big organization, it is not difficult to find someone X in this big organization that said it. It is not because it is a fact that Jacko in the big organization BigWowWow said that BigWowWow people are x, y,z that this fact is suitable in an article. When we consider the specific statement Y of Dennis Roark, we see that it is vague -- we do not have the exact facts. What does he mean by suppressing data? It is part of normal science to filter data and extract what is most useful. So, we would need more details, but even then it will be beside the points because so many studies were not done at MIU. Amrit 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can put all the spin on it you like. You can challenge it in every way you wish. (from Sethie)

What you cannot do is deny that he said it. (from Sethie)

If you can PROVE it is not suitable, I will take it out. If you and I can't get consensus, we ask for a RfC. (from Sethie)

It is not suitable because it is too vague. We do not know the exact facts. What does he mean by "evidence which was negative or inconclusive was suppressed"? Perhaps, there was a survey and they realised that many of the selected meditators in the survey had a history of non-prescribed drugs usage, and this was not the kind of study they wanted to do. This is just an example that I made up. The point is that we don't have enough details to make a judgment. Amrit 19:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, so let's not make a judgment. Let's just report a fact. Sethie 19:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant that if we consider it carefully, we cannot really draw any conclusion, but at the sametime the occurence of this quote suggests a conclusion: the TM organization is dishonest. My point is that we do not want to include a quote that is not informative (because it does not really lead to a conclusion), which in addition can be misleading. Amrit 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sworn affidavit and TM-ex web sites VS Wikipedia policies

We can also add that this accusation was not published in a reputable source. In accordanace with Wikpedia policy, a diffamatory statement requires that the source is even more reputable than normal. Certainly, TM-ex associations are not acceptable, especially not in this context since they are in conflict of interest. Amrit 05:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is another excerpt from Wikipedia:Verifiability :

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory.

Also, see #More on Verifiability

In this case, the ultimate goal of the claim is to discredit the scientific methods used by some scientists. Therefore, even a reputable news paper would not be sufficient! The source should be reputable in the area of scientific methods. I think that you will have to convince some editor of a scientific journal to publish your story, and then you could cite this journal. They do publish this kind of stories in the editorial section because it helps people evaluate the research. Amrit 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See, you keep on trying ot EVALUATE the validity of his statement, that is not your job as a WIKI writer. It is to report facts. He said it. It is noteworthy.

Dear Sethie! In accordance with the Verifiability policy, the source (i.e. the publisher) must be reputable in the subject area of the statement. For example, a news paper is not a reputable source for a scientific theory. So, in accordance with the Verifiability policy it is necessary to evaluate what is the essential subject area of the statement and see whether or not the source that is provided is reputable in that area -- this is not against the No original research policy. There are three main Wikipedia policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. All these policies support very well each other: you understand better any of these three policies when you understand the two others.

It is cited as being in a sworn affidavit! If that isn't credible enough for you... too bad. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs) .

First, I do not think that an affidavit is an appropriate source for a statement about scientific methods. Second, the source that you provide is a TM-ex letter, not the affidavit. This is a very significant point. The role of the source (i.e. of its publisher) is to make sure that the statement is fair, not biased, etc. This is why it is so important that the source (i.e., its publisher) is reputable in the subject area of the statement. Clearly, an TM-ex letter is not a reputable source. Amrit 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

True, the affidavit is quoted by in a TM-EX newsletter. The burden of proof is on you. Show they are lying and we will keep it out. Sethie 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the affidavit itself is not reputable enough in the area of scientific methods, I think it is pointless that anyone do a research to check this source.

Moreover, the above is an indication that you do not appreciate the significance of the Verifiability policy in connection with the No original research. Again, you have to understand these policies together. The goal of having a reputable source is to make sure that we do not have to do this kind of research. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

This ensures that we do not have to do original research inside Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that every thing published in a reputable source is true, of course not. However, it is not inside Wikipedia that we try to separate the truth from the non truth. This is why it is so important that the source is reputable. Plese read the subsection #Wikipedia policies, and the enclosing section. Amrit 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you are saying does not apply, so let's get to the root.

I admit that the affidavit is quoted by a critical TM page. The question is: did they make it up or is it real?

That is the ONLY issue here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs) .

You are really missing the point. I think I have been trying to explain to you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Verifiability is about reputable source. So, the only issue is the reputation of the source, the TM-ex letter in this case. Moreoever, even if you were to cite some governmental institution for this affidavit, it would still not be a reputable source for a statement on scientific methods. Please do read #Wikipedia policies, and the Wikipedia policies to verify for yourself.

How shall we go about finding out if it is real or not? btw I removed the "unsigned" that you added in. I did sign my comments. "Sethie 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)" Sethie 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the unsigned to specific paragraphs that I responded to. It was just to help the readers. After we reply a few times in this way, with a few nested unsigned paragraphs, it is getting harder to find ou who wrote what. I know that you signed at the end of all your paragraphs.

A suggestion to Sethie

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

Why all the extra words

I changed: In the results of this survey, those who continued the practice of TM for more than six months were less positive about the effect of TM than the dropouts. As a possible explanation, Dr. Otis presented evidences that "... dropouts and those who continue the practice of TM may differ in some fundamental way(s) prior to learning TM. [...] The latter appeared to have more problems before starting TM than the former."

to: He found that those who had pre-existing mental conditions were more likely to report these adverse psychiatric side effects then those without.

Was this part of your accidental revert as well?

If not.... ummm don't I say the exact same thing as you, much less words?

No, your short sentence missed the point, but thanks it helped me to realize that I should make my sentences clearer. Amrit 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie 08:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to summarize your point in one sentence. They look the same to me. Sethie 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I will look at it. Short is always good, but we must say what need to be said. Amrit 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether TM is a religion

Wheter the TM puja is a worship ceremony

This phrase is misleading:

"... a Hindu worhsip ceremony that everyone who learns TM must go through, ..."

Certainly, the new meditators are not required to worship anything. They are clearly explained that it is a ceremony of gratitude to the tradition of masters who have maintained the knowledge of TM, and they only have to witness.

That is the explination the TM organization gives. However, in the ceremony, Krishna, Shakti, Brahma are praised, and the said "to theee I bow down." Also, Guru Dev is called God.

Nowehere in the ceremony do the words "thank you" appear.

This is your interpretation. Maharishi says so often that Guru Dev is a man. He is very clear that all masters mentioned in the puja are men. Also gratitude can be expressed in so many ways. For example, it is a public fact that Maharishi has given the title "His divinity" to Guru Dev, but he is still clear that Guru Dev is a man. It is just an expression of admiration. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

) you think it is my interpretation.

Ask any Hindu to read the puja, and ask if Guru Dev is being worshiped as a God.

The only way they participate in the Hindu worhsip service, is to bring a flower and a fruit- which are offered to Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

There is some participation. However, it is not true that there are offering to God and Goddesses. Again, it is a ceremony of gratitude to the masters of the Vedic Tradition, which are men. Every other interpretation is just in your mind. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

) No, you think it is in my mind, big difference.

) Oh, by all means, tell me about the HUMAN MASTERS named: Lord Narayana, to lotus-born Brahma the Creator, SHAKTI Govinda, Krishna, Lord Shiva with Mother Divine.

It is true that there are some human teachers in there. It is not true that there are ONLY human teachers in there.

The Truth is out there Sethie 18:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If I follow your logic, the judicial system of some countries is a religion because every judge must go through a ceremony before taking office, a ceremony that has its origin in the culture of the country, which is often very religious. See http://www.om.fi/esitteet/18702.htm, just for an example.

The following oath to become a physician, which is still used in some countries, is even a better example Hippocratic_Oath. You might say that it is not the samething, but this would be your viewpoint. Really, the instructor is required to perform the ceremony for a similar purpose.

Amrit 18:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are preaching to the converted! I am quite clear that religion shows up in many supposdily "secular" settings.

Oh wow, the "supposedly secular setting" expression suggests that you are not convinced that our health care and legal systems are not religions!!! They are clearly not religious at all. So there is no roon for the "supposedly". Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Watch your black and white thinking there. If there were completely secular, there would be no mention of God. I'd say they are 99.99% not religious.

Does that make it a religion? I don't know... If you want to believe a judicial system IS a religion, go for it.

I am saying the opposite. My point is that we have two precedents that show that this kind of ceremonies in an organization do not imply that the organization is a religious organization. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said TM was a religious organization hero. I said it was an organization with plenty of religious components.

Please note, nowhere have I claimed TM is a religion.... The facts are TM has some religious components to it. Whine about it, accuse other institutions of being religions, etc.

We do progress. Now we have established that there is no argument to support the clain that TM is a religion.

There is also no arguement to support that it is NOT a religion, since both are subjective judgments!

The next step is to establish the difference with a religion and put the emphasis on it.

This does not make any sense to me, hence I cannot respond.

This is will be the way to reach a consensus. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, the TM movement calls the ceremony "a puja" complain to them about it.

You say that puja means an Hindu invocation to gods or something like that. However, the word puja existed before the Hinduism religion!!! It has a different meaning. Many words have different meaning in different context. In the context of TM, it just means a ceremony of gratitude. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you are an eytemologist too. Please tell me about the pre-Hindu meaning of a word that means "Hindu Worship Ceremony."

Whether you like it or not, if you learned TM, you participated supplied the major offerings -- the fruit, flowers, and handkerchief, for the "puja." And you were required to kneel at the end before a picture of a Hindu Guru, after chanting was done, which affirmed that he was in fact God.

This is false. Nobody is required to kneel. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could be, I remember reading that this is required, I will have to check on it.

If you were to stand in front of a Catholic altar, were required by the priest to bring offerings, required to hold a palm frond while he recites prayers, and finally were asked forcefully to kneel down to a picture of Jesus -- wouldn't you be a participant?

The ceremony requires some participation, and so what. Again it is just a ceremony of gratitude. It helps the teacher recall that he is not teaching his own technique but a technique that he received from a tradition of masters. It protects the purity of the teaching. It is similar to the purpose of the ceremony to become a physician or a judge. Amrit 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie 19:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The only issue is- is it religious or not? You say no, you say, it is like a Doctor swearing an oath. I say, see: http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/puja.htm Sethie 00:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have looked at your site. I don't get your point. If I trust your site, I must say that the TM puja is like a traditional puja. I am saying that they have a similarity with traditional oaths, which mention names of gods. In fact, it is even less problematic in the case of a puja because all masters mentioned in the puja are men.

"Because all masters mentioned in the puja are men." Yes, and all Gods mentioned in the puja are Gods! lol

I meant all names are names of men and if one is said to be the creator, we must obviously refer with great admiration to its inner value -- he is still a man with ears, eyes, born of a mother, had a teacher, etc.

Call Krishna, Shiva, Shakti men if you want, it doesn't change anything.

It is a detail, but Krishna is not in the puja.

"To Shankaracharya, the Emancipator, adored as Krishna and Badarayana, to the two authors of the commentary on the Brahma Sutras," ; "to Govinda" (another name for Krishna); Who the hell is "LORD Shiva." A person might take the name Shiva, however no one would take the name LORD Shiva.

No one would take such a name himself, but someone else can give it to him, for sure. For example, what about "His Divinity Guru Dev". "Divinity" seems to qualify Guru Dev as a god, but it is public that Maharishi says that Guru Dev is a man.

You try too see your viewpoint. Try to see my viewpoint. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere (I don't have the reference) it is said that Narayana has given the knowledge to Brahma. If Brahma is the creator how could Narayana give something to him?

Again your ignorance of the Hindu tradition is clear, anyone who knew anything about Hinduism would understand this point. Study up and you'll understand.

Please provide the references. I am curious to see how the Hinduism clarify this issue. In any case, what is important is that my understanding from reading TM material and discussing with TM people is that we do consider that these were all men that could receive and pass knowledge. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you think that this is not your problem, and that the problem is that those who believe in these gods lack of common sense. Fine, but the TM teachers are not that kind of believers. So, your interpretation of Brahma as the creator (the god), etc. may be the Hinduism understanding, but it is not the TM understanding. Try the idea that they are human and these qualities (creator, etc) refer to inner value.

We can play make believe, which is what you are asking me to do. I can pretend they are not Hindu Gods.

It does not matter. I hope that you were not looking for a universal truth with regard to these names. So, the Hinduism can have their puja with their viewpoint. You can do your own puja, if you want, with your viewpoint. TM has its viewpoint. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that a name of a god can be given to a human being.

It is not just a possibility, it happens, Hindus take the name of their Gods. However, show me a single refference in Hidnu, Vedic or TM literature that explains who these humans are. Who is "to lotus-born BRAHMA THE CREATOR"

There is no need to identify them. The important is what the TM teachers think and feel when they do the Puja. The problem is that you think that the TM viewpoint can be incorrect. You even laugh and say it is obvious that we do not understand the Hinduism tradition. This is because you think that there is a universal truth about these names. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So Brahma can be the name of a god in some context, but not in the Puja. The main point is that it is only a ceremony of gratitude. Even if there are names of gods, it is only a ceremony of gratitudes.

You repeat that like a mantra. You have said it over ten times, yet you have yet to provide any evidence.

Sure, you keep missing the point. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be truthful, say "The TM organization SAYS it is a ceremomny of gratitude."

Actually, the key point is that if it says it and the teachers accept it, then it becomes true.

Here is where Guru Dev is worhsiped as a God: THE ONE, THE ETERNAL, THE PURE, THE IMMOVABLE, the witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought- the Transcendent along with the three gunas, the true preceptor, to Shri Guru Dev, I bow down.

Excellent! You just confirmed my point. You see what is in the puja, and still clearly Guru Dev is a man and nobody believes that Guru Dev is a god. Oh I see, perhaps you feel that when Maharishi says "His Divinity", he is worshiping Guru Dev as a god. He explains that it is only that he appreciates his greatness and that His holiness did not express the feeling. You will never succeed to make me feel that teachers worship Guru Dev as a god because it is not how you think and feel about it or what the Hinduism say about it that matters here. What matters is what teachers feel and think about it.

I think that all names in the puja are names of masters in the Vedic tradition of masters and, if they do, they are men. Clearly, Guru Dev is a man. If they are not, they are expressions of some basic laws of nature. We never take a religious viewpoint. The basic point still hold anyway: it is a ceremony of gratitude.

I retract my hesitation. What I heard is that they all men, all masters of the Vedic tradition. It is a human thing. Amrit 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The basic point is: you are labeling it as a ceremony of gratitude.

Yes, gratitude to the masters of the Vedic tradition.

If you knew anything about Hinduism, you would know that in Hinduism, GURUS ARE WORSHIPPED AS GODS. There is a Hindu saying, "Guru, God and Self" are one and the same. You would also know that you only do pujas to Gods- or Gurus, as Gods. You would also know that the various things offered in the ceremony are only offered to Gods.

I don't know about this saying, but if it is like when Maharishi calls Guru Dev "His Divinity", there is not much there: A man is a man. A god is a god, some fundamental collections of laws.

However, you don't know much about Hinduism, and that is ok. If you did we would not be having this conversation.

This is where you get it wrong. You think that an expertise in Hindouism is necessary to interpret what is happenning in the TM puja. This is because you start with the belief that because it is similar in form to a puja of the Hinduism religion it is necessarily a ceremony of the Hinduism religion. My interpretation is more accurate because it is the one that is actually used in practice. In practice, almost all teachers of TM do not know about the Hinduism religion. So, the interpretation based on the Hinduism religion is beside the point. I was obviously giving you the interpretation that I have from what I heard in the TM organization, which I am very happy to find out from you is not the Hinduism interpretation. Amrit 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, it IS a Hindu Puja, in content, word choice, actions, etc. I say this having attended, participated and led Hindu Pujas!

If the TM wants to call it something else, that is fine. If they want to spin a whole new story, that is fine. But let's be clear. They are using a Hindu ritual, appealing to Hindu Gods, using Hindu concepts and CALLING it something else.

Dude, Guru Dev was a Hindu. Maharishi was and is a Hindu. Maharishi is a Hindu title! lol

Meditators do not have to believe or worhship anything.Amrit 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

> I agree, that is why I wrote those very words in the article.

Your interpretation is actually not clear. On one side, you accept that there is no worship to gods

Actually your understanding of the facts are not clear. Nowehre did I say there is no worhip of Gods. Try again.

Oh, so perhaps you believe that teachers worship gods then! The meditators would be trapped into a worship ceremony even though they are not required to worship because the teacher does the worship. I missed this subtlety. Well, teachers do not know about the Hinduism religion, and I know they do not worship gods. As I said, I think they are told that only men are named in the puja.

I agree that is what they are told.

In any case, even for teachers, in fact especially for teachers, it is only a ceremony of gratitude.

You mean, that is what they are told it is.

Where is the worship? Amrit 09:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No comment required, the PUJA "Hindu Worship" speaks for itself Sethie 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See above discussion. If we don't understand each other here. I am not sure that we will ever succeed. I think that you want that we use the Hinduism interpretation as the primary interpretation, the official interpretation. I think that you feel that TM is trapping people because it does not unveil this official interpretation, which you would like to consider as the universal truth about the puja. You even laugh when we don't know it! This is funny because, from my viewpoint, the fact that we do not even know this interpretation is proving you wrong. From my viewpoint, the TM organization emerges from the Vedic Tradition and it does not have to deal with this Hinduism interpretation. Amrit 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to understand the context, are you Hindu and do your own puja sometimes? Amrit 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

and, on another side, you talk as if we are tricked into a puja where gods are worshiped. If there is no worship, then there is no worship, and why the Hinduism religion is a concern. Amrit 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie 02:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism and Vedas

Show me a single source that says Vedic Culture predates Hinduism. For most scholars (and Hindus) the two are the same. Only TM makes this distinction. If you can't cite it, please remove it. I looked at the two sources you cited, and neither one makes that distinction, nor says it predates. Sethie 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about the Hinduism point of view... I certainly will not agree that the Hinduism point of view prevails here. If you want to say, that the Hinduism has a special view in which it always existed, go ahead... (actually I will prefer not because it is not related to the article)Amrit 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is already cited. See Vedic civilization and Hinduism. Here are extracts:

Hinduism (हिन्दू धर्म; also known as Sanātana Dharma - सनातन धर्म, and Vaidika-Dharma - वैदिक धर्म) is a worldwide religious tradition that is based on the Vedas and is the direct descendent of the Vedic Indo-Iranian religion

The Vedic civilization is the Indo-Aryan culture associated with the Vedas, [...] continued up to the 6th century BCE, when the culture started to be transformed into classical forms of Hinduism.

Amrit 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You poop head! You didn't cite vedic_civ the first time around. I will read and ponder. Maybe you do know something about Hinduism! :) Sethie 08:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand. MMY looks to only the Vedas, not all the things that have sprung up since then, yes? Sethie 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that Maharishi only look at the four vedas, no. Maharishi considers all the Vedic literature or Vedic culture. The key point is that the Vedic culture (and the Vedic oral tradition which has maintained it) is not the samething as Hinduism. You take the view point that the remains of the Vedic culture are embedded in Hinduism, but this is just a view point. From the viewpoint of Maharishi since he took the systematic, verifiable and practical part of what the Vedic tradition has given us, not the religious part, he says that its teaching originate in the Vedic oral tradition, not in Hinduism. There are statements here that required studies on Maharishi technolgies to support them (e.g. that Maharishi succeeded to take the practical, etc..)), but the distinction between Hinduism and Vedic culture is not something related to TM.Amrit 09:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What is YOUR definition of "Vedic Literature." Mine would be the Vedas, as per the article Vedic culture.

I think that for many the Vedas are only the four basic Vedas. I agree that the terms Vedas is also used to refer to the entire Vedic literature. I prefer to use Vedic literature in this case to avoid any confusion. Amrit 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"You take the view point that the remains of the Vedic culture are embedded in Hinduism" I do not understand that sentence and cannot reply to it. Sethie 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not clear. We can forget about this sentence. The point I had in mind is perhaps you think that refering to the Vedic culture today is equivalent to referring to the Hinduism. I think that, if someone is careful not to take the religious beliefs, but instead has a new understanding that can be systematically verified, has a practical value, etc., it is normal that he does not refer to Hinduism. Amrit 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Links

Hey there :72.146.186.170-

You removed some links without any explanation... and I'd like to know your thought process around that deicision. Sethie 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of fourth category

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

I did not remove it, at the least not intentionally. Amrit 08:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You did remove, and I accept that it was unintentional. Careful with reverts..... Sethie 08:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The TM organization is not replying anything in this article

Sethie, please stops adding phrases like "The TM organization replies...". I am not representing the TM organization. I just extract from the knowledge that I read. We can say that the TM organisation says X, Y, Z and contrast X, Y, Z with what the critics say, but it is not a reply. Amrit

If TM is answering criticisms, then it is replying. It also makes the article a little more readable.

Sethie 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be right about more readable, but not more accurate. We cannot give an intention to the TMO, if we do not know that it really had this intention. If we only know that it said X, Y, Z, we cannot say that it was an answer or a reply to criticisms. Amrit 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We cannont not know it either. Sethie 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect! It is possible that you do not know the intention of the TM organization. This is something that you should keep in mind. Amrit 06:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC TM improves ALL areas of life

Please place comments here for discussion on this claim in the first paragraph. Amrit and I have not been able to see eye to eye on this one.

Actually it would be better if we respect the current organization and place comments in their appropriate section. Amrit 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth is there are many pieces in this article which I believe Amrit has made non-NPOV, however I want to raise them one at a time and get outside input on them, one at a time, I anticpate quite a battle on each one. Some outside perspectives would be helpful! Sethie 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, after I placed the RfC Amrit has mafe 10 edits, TO MY RFC, moving it around, changing header titiles, moving it to the middle of the page, etc. I can't keep up and and do not feel the desire to get into an arguement about the structure of the RfC I placed! Other feedback appreciated. Sethie 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie, I don't know what is a RFC, but if you look at the final result of these 10 edits, I didn't touch at all your text. Your original RFC, whatever it is, is exactly like it was, with one of my comments inserted and signed like we do usually. The 10 edits is because I tried in different ways to have a discussion that respects the current organization of topics. Amrit 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See #All areas of life for a reply to Sethie on this specific topic.

This article is definitively not NPOV

This article is a discussion of critics of ex-TM organizations. We have no time and space to report on the actual studies done on TM, except those that are chosen by these organizations. I took the first two papers that were proposed by Sethie, and extracted important info from these papers that were not disclosed by these organizations. I forgot to mention the web pages that she cited with no reference to support their claims, except broken links. I might look at the last study proposed by Sethie: the German study. I suspect there are also important info that are not disclosed there. In the papers that I have seen, after we disclose all info, no conclusion can be drawn in support or against TM. So, at the end, we don't learn much. The problem is that, if we continue like that, this article will look as a debate were TM is under attack and must defend itself, with no genuine report on the other studies, which have an actual content -- this is not NPOV. The alternative option, which is to let them report on these articles in a non-NPOV manner, is not that much worst and it takes less energy. Maybe it is what is going to happen -- the whole thing is not going to be NPOV anyway.

NPOV tag

For different reasons, user Amrit and I believe this page is not currently NPOV. Please comment here Sethie 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note that user Amrit removed the NPOV tag, without gaining any consensus to do so, hence I have placed it back Sethie 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not gain any consensus to put it there either. It think the article is non-NPOV, but the tag indicates/creates some level of tension which I would prefer not to exhibit. Amrit 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie, if you were to put your energy in telling us where is the dispute that will help. I understand that you might feel that it is everywhere, but that doesn't help anyone. I removed the NPOV tag because I read the policy and it says that this tag is for ungoing discussion, and you don't seem ready to discuss. Also, in the policy, they say that we must indicate where is the dispute. We disagreed on many things, but a lot of it was with no specific reference to the article or, when it was related to a specific point in the article, your viewpoint actually prevailed in the article. So, to help me and others, it will be helpful that you describe precisely what is being disputed so seriously IN THE ARTICLE. Until then I will remove the tag. Amrit 02:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I put it back. Sometimes, it is better to lose, even when we believe that we are logically right. It is in the hope that the discussion starts again. Amrit 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your capacity to impose your interpretations onto reality never ceases to amaze me: "you don't seem ready to discuss." ? Just because I am not hopping on here every five minutes...I will go at my own pace.

I had a some free time and it was fun to spending 4-6 hours a day dialogueing with you, now my energy pulls me in other directions.

There are about 15 pieces in this article I contest are not neutral, the first is the 2nd sentence: he TM teaching emphasises that it is a simple, natural, and easy-to-learn mental technique.

Sorry, this is not a promotional brochure for TM. No need to go honking TM's virtues right off the bat.

We are certainly not going to suggest it is a religion right from the beginning either! So, what will we say? Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone who was completely neutral was asked: what is TM? Would the 2nd thing they say- it is simple, natural and easy to learn mental technique? And would the thrid thing be "studes indicate that it benefits ALL areas of life (which you did sort of change, though now it reads really weird)?

No. Instead of making a sales pitch, they would DESCRIBE it: TM is a mediation technique taught by Maharishi Maheshi Yogi, an Indian spiritual teacher taught to over 6 million people all around the world. It is also a spiritual movement, with a college, a political party, etc.

I must say that it doesn't look too bad. I might even say it looks good. "Spiritual" is perfectly fine to me. However, there is no political party. There was a connection with the Natural Law party in the past, but not anymore. This party might not exist anymore. Amrit

That's what a first paragraph would look like, introducing them to TM, not trying to get them desperate to go do it!

Even from my perspective, I can appreciate your point. Amrit 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that the article is going to present two conflicting points of view WITHOUT TAKING SIDES: A) Some studies says TM is good and good for you B) Some studies say TM is potentially dangerous and according to some has some methodological issues; a neutral writer would probaly not even mention the studies in paragraph one (more on that later).

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

A neutral observer would probaly not send people to a website that has an 800 number whose function is, by their own description to tell people "how and where to learn," IN THE SECOND SENTENCE!

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

That's all I'll say for now, and I don't plan on dialogueing with you alone.... though maybe we can find a pace that works for both of us. SAT! Sethie 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No comment on your critique of studies of quotes, FOR NOW, since we are on paragraph one.

I am open to a website, just one that is less commercial, like http://www.t-m.org.uk/

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

To sperate TM and the TM organization would be an interesting task.... I will ponder it... the two are very intertwined....

I will play with the intro a bit and see if you like it. Sethie 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the NPOV tag

For the record, this is the fourth time Amrit has removed the NPOV tag without getting consensus... though in his defense, he did put it back once on his own accord.

Please stop. Consensus is NOT needed to place one. Consensus IS needed to remove one. Sethie 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, do you have the reference for this rule! Instead of just repeating it. It seems a very strange absolute rule. Hard to believe. Amrit 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Added note: I went to see the page on the NPOV tag, and there was nothing about this rule. Where did you see this rule? I saw plenty of rules that explain when the tag is not appropriate. Explanation when it is appropriate. However, I didn't see any rule that says that consensus is required to remove a NPOV tag. It would be a very surprising rule: only one guy with negative intention could discredit an article simply by adding the tag, and never accept to remove it.

If you spent some time participating in Wiki other then just the TM and Meditation page, specifically other RfC or NPOV disputes, you would not have this question. Sethie 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I have set up a user conduct RFC- please discuss this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lumiere Sethie 06:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should focus on those who keep putting back their own version of sections such "Sexism .." and "Political..." instead of improving on what is already there. Sethie, I definitively agree that additional opinions are needed.

I don't like some of the tone in those sections, but my attention is elsewhere, working in a top down fashion, maybe dialogueing with the person would help? Sethie 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph re-write

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

Yes! However, I am leaving for a conference tomorrow and will be away for a few days, and I preparing for my departure.

Splitting Transcendental Meditation and TM organization

It is very interesting to write about the TM international organization, but I think that an article that would focus on transcendental meditation is needed. Sethie, the article that I feel that you would like to write with me and others, and I would be happy to participate, is about the TM organization and all its activities, peace palaces, health system, etc. and some sociological aspects of the organization, etc. I am more interested to write an article about transcendental meditation per se, but I will participate in this other project too. Of course, the article title "Transcendental meditation" will point to the article on transcendental meditation which will have a link to the other article. Except for that link, the article on TM should only have links to resources about TM per se. What do you think?

At the moment, I don't have any desire to engage this topic, I tryint to get what has been written more neutral and up to par.

It is a big change, I would ask for a RfC before you do it.

If you do it now, I will oppose it, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because, this article has enough issues already. I am more interested in closing some doors before opening anymore. Anyway if we get this article looking good, such a switch would be really easy. Sethie 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If one go really into what is TM, which you didn't do, in my opinion he will see that it is very good. It is not sufficient just to know that

• there are scientific studies about the benefits,
• consider some quotes that discredit these studies and
• some controversial studies that mention harmful effects

to make a judgment. This is too superficial. I am interestd in going deeper than that. Moreover, I don't see that we can really make a meaningful article on the TM organization without going deeper than that. If you do not see the value of TM, it makes sense to think that the TM movement is very special: global country of world peace, etc. the whole thing looks so weird. On the other hand, if you appreciate the value of TM, it makes sense. This deep feeling level, which depend on the appreciation of the basic message of the TM organization, is very important. So, I don't get your point. If I follow your suggestion, I will be discussing at the superficial level about sexism, religion, coerxion, peace palace, etc. Just take religion as an exmaple. Why do we care about the fact that Maharishi is an Hindu? Einstein was perhaps catholic, but no physicists care about that. I understand that there are more connection with Hinduism in the case of TM than there are connection between relativity and catholism, but the same logic applies: why do we care? It is the technique per se, the logics, etc. that matters. This is just an example. Amrit 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I am evaluating the situation. I know that the first paragraph does not look bad, even though it is superficial, but if we continue at the superficial level with religion, sexism, internal policies, etc. (I mean superficial in comparison with the essential message about TM) what the TM organization does (Global country of world peace, etc.) might be misinterpreted. Maybe not. Maybe it is possible to be neutral when we describe the TM organization and delay any judgment until after we understand the message about TM. However, when I recall our original discussion about the disclosure of mantras, and if I consider what did happen in the subsections on sexism and coercion, etc., I must say that I am not convinced. So, whether or not we split, I feel that we must very soon consider the TM technique per se, and go deeper than just the three points above. Amrit 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, expand the article! Sethie 04:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is one option I consider, but if the article in which I write about TM is full of misinterpretations around, I might not be interested. It will be like endorsing it. So, why is it that I cannot just start an article on TM per se. Why people will oppose to it? Maybe there is an implicit intention to discredit the main message with these issues of religion, coercion, etc. I am just saying: leave the editors that want to write about TM per se alone, let them do their thing. What is wrong with that? I know that you are telling me that you want to avoid this opposition, but if this opposition is there because there is an implicit intention to discredit or reject the main message about TM per se, then it is not a good idea to go along with it. Amrit 04:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my response, you would read that I oppose the timing of your proposal and not the proposal itself. I have no further comment on this issue for now. Sethie 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that separating the method from the organization is essential for clarity. I also suggest that it happen now; efficient wiki-editing usually requires the largest changes to come first. -- Alan McBeth 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alan- thanks for your input. Would you elaborate what you mean by clarity? Specifically, how do you see this change making things more clear? Sethie 16:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The first three sentences of the article call TM a technique, a movement, and an organization, respectively. Where does one end and another begin? How do they interrelate? Where do I look to quickly find (or add) information about one of them? -- Alan McBeth 03:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmm Here is the Britanica's intro:

(TM), movement that was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became popular in the West during the 1960s. The movement is based more on the practice of specific techniques of meditation than on a set of religious or philosophical beliefs. As a monk in India in the 1940s and '50s the Maharishi developed a form of meditation that could be easily practiced by people in the modern…

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073184?query=transcendental%20meditation&ct=

Where does one end and the other begin? I can only answer that if in fact they do!

TM, depending on who you ask is: ~a meditation technique ~an organization ~a spritual organiztion, hence a spiritual or religious movement ~a cult

I have no answers, only questions.

I guess I am clear on one thing, the TM technique does not exist in a void: ~You cannot learn it without interacting with the TM organization, without becoming initiated into the holy tradition. ~The TM technique is not presented as just a technique. There are a specific set of beliefs that taught to the person alongside the technique. ~Some people when they say TM mean the technique, some people mean the movement. Sethie 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another refference that doesn't distinguish: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html

Hi Sethie, my understanding is that the idea is to avoid that we confuse TM and the TM organization. The long discussions about the TM organization in an article about TM implicitly suggest that the TM technique has no real content by itself, as in the case of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs can perhaps be understood as if they were instruments that are used by a religious organization. In this particular viewpoint, it is natural to first understand the religious organization and then analyse the beliefs in that context. Taking a similar approach with TM is a strong POV on TM. Amrit 02:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, since TM has a real content by itself, it is not just a belief, I feel that we should have the opposite approach: we should first understand what is TM, how valuable it is, etc. and only then analyse the TM organization in that context. For example, I think it is incomplete and misleading to analyse whether or not TM is a religion just by looking at the TM organization itself without a good understanding of the TM technique per se. I only want that the editors who are interested in TM per se can proceed without having to deal with these other issues that would be more accurately considered after an understanding of the TM technique per se. Amrit 02:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to separate Transcendental Meditation from the TM organization; I think this can be done within the same article just fine. It just needs to be clear that Transcendental Meditation is an actual technique that is fairly intuitive after a disciplined meditative practice. The difficult part here is to seperate personal and organizational bias from what the actual technique is. Transcendental Meditation has always existed and is one of the most ancient of all meditative practices and it didn't start in 1960. I will look into doing some work on the article to these ends; I want to also add that just because most encyclopedias have inaccurate information about Transcendental Meditation, does not mean we/wikipedia should follow suit. --Dren 09:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a minor edit where I have tried to handle the issue with seperating Transcendental Meditation from the Organization TM. I have tried to be neutral and objective considering the easily accessible verifiable data. I think this is all that can be done for now without maiming the article. I think this is the best for the time being, until we get this article shaped up a little more.

For now I would like to also note from the article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that there has been other controversy about TM and that it has been proven in court that Transcendental Meditation/ TM is not unique. Maharishi was just lucky to coin an already existent but obscure concept and market it as an organization. Maharishi also attempted to copyright a commonly known and ubiquitous form of meditation known as "manasika-japa" (mental use of mantra for meditation). So I think that in the future we should definetely look toward seperating Transcendental Meditation from TM. --Dren 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here. It is clear that this article is about the technique taught by the TM organization. You are proposing to change the subject of the article. Whether TM (as taught by the TM organization) is unique is certainly not off topic, but redefining the subject of this article to be about all forms of meditation that use a mantra is certainly not acceptable. When I proposed to separate the technique from the TM organization, I never meant that we should deny that TM is the technique taught by the TM organization. --Lumiere 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was never opposed that we say something about the TM organization inside this article. I only proposed this separation when things went too far. People started to mention that the TM organization was sexism, etc. If you mention that the TM organization has X numbers of teachers of TM, then it is not off topic, but if you consider whether or not the TM organization is sexism, then I feel that this should belong to a different article. That was the point. --Lumiere 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made my last edit for the time being, on the begining of the Intro and changed "Hinduism" to "Vendanta Philosophy" to be more specific (you can find this info in the Columbia Encyclopedia). I agree with you and recommend a move of the detailed information about the TM organization from the Intro into a separate section.

In response to your disagremeent; I think I may have been too vague. I only meant to say emphasize Maharishi has sucessfully done with TM what he tried and failed to do with "manasika-japa". I do not propose to redefine the subject of the article to be about all forms of meditation that use a mantra. This is obviously something that can't be changed through Wikipedia, and must come into public scrunity first. --Dren 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

moved discussions on political agenda here

An article is not the place to discuss things, this is, I have moved comments here, please don't put your comments IN the article! :)

- Comment: One can always resort to sophistry to support the contention that TM and the TM-Sidhi Program are not Vedic-Hindu religious practices, but as the saying goes, "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck."

Comment: As is typical, critics missed the point that the field of "thought and action" belongs to the meditators as well! "Water the root to enjoy the fruit" means that meditators will think and act better in whatever field they choose to act, including the field of politics. Also, the dates are wrong: Maharishi must have explained in the early days of the organization that the benefits of TM sprout from the inner values of consciousness.

Comment: If the benefits of practicing TM come spontaneously to the individual and to society, why should it be necessary to form a political party?--why not just meditate and watch the transformation occur as Maharishi has predicted. This begs the question is the agenda of the NLP really spiritual?

Comment: Telling people about TM requires an organization, which can take different forms. Again, this critic misses the point: Maharishi never said that concrete thoughts and actions are not necessary.

Comment: Some critics say "If TM is good, why governments do not teach it?" Some other critics say "Why TM is going into politics?". The first critic is the answer to the second.

Comment: The Natural Law Party was founded (and millions of dollars wasted) in a misguided and vain attempt to influence governments to teach TM. Its failure was inevitable because most governments in the West are secular. In the United States, there is a constitutional mandate requiring the separation of religion and state. We live in a pluralistic society, which means that in fairness to all the diverse cultural traditions present in the population, no particular religious or spiritual practice may be taught or conducted in the public schools or sponsored by government. In the United States, religious and spiritual organizations and practices are not persecuted. On the contrary, they are considered entirely appropriate (even encouraged with tax exemption) as long as their activities are conducted in the private sector. Rather than abide by the laws of the countries in which his organization operates, Maharishi has elected to "Damn the democracy" because he cannot get his way. This is a childish response that will only alienate supporters who appreciate the wisdom of a secular approach to government in a highly diverse society.

Comment: There is no doubt that Maharishi is quite strong about the fact that teachers must move into building constructed in accordance with Vedic principles. Maharishi has given specific rules on that respect. It is the unfair and cruel behavior that is attributed to Maharishi with the expressions coercion, blackmailed, threatening, force them to, etc. (see the text above and the comment below) that can be disputed. One should separate the facts from the personal interpretation of one critic. This critic seems to consider that he knows so much what is good and bad that he can accuse anyone else, such as Maharishi, that has a different view. Another critic has attacked the integrity of Maharishi's workers with unsupported and vague quotes. This is what makes this article non-NPOV. This article is supposed to be about TM, but somehow it is now about the internal policies of the TM organization. While we discuss the internal policies of the organization, we don't learn about TM. This is because in the mind of these critics, TM is mainly a social phenomena in which the technique per se is only an instrument with secondary intrinsic value.

Comment: Maharishi is not asking his "workers" to move into Vedically-approved housing. He is instead threatening to fire them (cut them off) if they do not. This can only drive an even deeper wedge between the "haves" and the "have-nots" within the TM organization at a time when it would appear that Maharishi needs all the support he can muster. Where is the attention to the "finest level of feeling" in the punitive strategy he has adopted? Are these the methods of a truly "enlightened" man? It is actions such as this that make TM so controversial.

"Comments" being repeatedly added to the article

User 149 keeps posting his comments about the article in the article, depsite numerous users taking them out. I have asked for a RfC on his behavior, please post comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/149.152.216.49&action=edit Sethie 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I ended up blocking that IP for a day, and then they started using other IPs to do the same thing. Also, the NPOV tag was added to try and respond to this in this edit a couple of days ago (although I recognize that there was a preexisting difference of opinion between Sethie and Lumiere), so I am going to remove it from the article in hopes that it can be worked out in the absence of the third party -- the anon IP editor -- BCorr|Брайен 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add to this list as they occur:

• Special:Contributions/149.152.216.146
• Special:Contributions/149.152.216.49
• Special:Contributions/149.152.216.87
• Special:Contributions/69.201.146.105
• Special:Contributions/149.152.217.24
• Special:Contributions/149.152.216.7
• Special:Contributions/Pock Suppet

Thank you for blockinig him. Wowsa... it is amazing the damage one person can do. I hope he stays blocked for longer then a day. Ummm the NPOV tag was placed before 149 started his rampage.... 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

numer of tm practitioners

Hey Macro Krohn. Nice to see you helping out with the article.

As for the #- do you have a source? The www.tm.org claims 6 million... curious where you got that #. sat! Sethie 16:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

the number stems from the German WP article, which got it probably from REMID [12] (see the headline "Verbreitung", there you can read "TM-Kritiker nennen dagegen etwa 2 Millionen Praktizierende weltweit und 50.000 in Deutschland." -- mkrohn 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I am unclear how we report this in the article... the TM organization claims 6 million people, while other sources list it as 2? Sethie 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page so that editors can reach a consensus on the talk page. -Willmcw 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

ummmmm What exactly are you wanting us to reach consensus on?

I mean we are slowly hashing this article out.... you protecting it will keep the vandal away, other then that, I believe it will actually slow down the consensus process.

Please help me understand where you are coming from? Sethie 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages are very helpful for reaching consensus on whatever topics are in dispute. Since we cannot block the unregistered user who keeps adding inappropriate material to the article, protecting the page may lead him or discuss rather than simly blindly adding material for which there is no consensus. It appears that the last several hundred edits, over the last few days, have been chiefly engaged with his edits and the resulting repairs. Let's give the article and the editors a day or two off and see if that helps. If another admin wants to lift it sooner I won't object.Just trying to be helpful. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Will -- I think that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully disputes can be resolved on this page while the article itself is protected. BCorr|Брайен 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand where you are coming from.

I do not share your optimisim that the anon user will be willing to discuss, however, I hope I am wrong! Sethie 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Subjectivity/NPOV

EDIT: Somebody beat me to it, so the below is moot.

<moot> I removed the following mini-paragraph from the TM article -- I feel it reflects a distinct unpleasant prejudice and lacks the sort of objectivity that the Wiki community aspires to.

"How about a few words about Maharishi's plans to make over the entire world according to his interpretation of the "Constitution of the Universe"!? How can so many people be so incredibly gullible?"

Hope this is okay -- I read the Wiki daily, and I figured removing this detritus was one small step I could take to give back. </moot>

-Brian (bhenriksen [at] gmail.com)

Leon Ottis studies mentioned twice

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

I don't know what you mean. Amrit 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation for claim of not post-veda

You cited the Vedic culture as proof that the BG was part of vedic culture, however upon reading it, I found that the BG is considered POST Vedic.

Now you are claiming it is in Vedic, according to "scholars." Who and what scholars?

Also, please cite a source claiming it is the essence of the Vedas. I have heard it called the essence of VEDANTA, which means "the end of the Vedas," but not the essence of the Vedas.

No need to source them in the article, just list here.

Sethie 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you refer to this:

Moreover, there is a distinction between Hinduism and Vedic culture, which is considered the source of Hinduism. The Vedic culture produced a vast literature, including the Vedas and treatises such as Ayur Veda in health. The Bhagavad-gita is described as the essence of the Vedas. Modern scholars say that its writing might not have predated Hinduism. However, most scholars agree that the Vedic culture was originally maintained by a long Vedic tradition, an oral tradition that predated Hinduism and of which we have some remains today.

Nowhere it is written that BG is part of Vedic culture. Amrit 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that, and I took it out! lol

I know, but I didn't realize that you wrote that before you took it out. I thought you were still complaining. (PS. I suggest that you sign the paragraphs that you insert in between someone else paragraphs, even the small one.) Amrit 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is explicitly written that scholars say that it might not have preceded Hinduism, which means that it may have come at the same time or later. Amrit 19:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A) Where is that written?

What do you mean? In the text above Amrit 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

B) What relevance does that have to this article?

It is because I do not want to let the reader think that I claim that modern scholars say that the BG predates Hindouism, which would help but is not fundamental to support the statement that TM is not a religion. The argument is primarily based on the TM non religious understanding of the Vedic tradition (scientific studies, etc.) The dates were these texts were written down are secondary, but still the argument is much stronger if we separate the Vedic tradition from Hinduism as much as possible even from an historical perspective. The problem is that very little is known about the origin of these epics which very likely were transmitted orally before they were written down in their current version. Amrit 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I will check for the sentence about being the essence of the Vedas. I think it was a paste and cut.Amrit 19:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie 19:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag, again

In the hopes of drawing more attention to this article, and because of Lumiere consistant Pro TM bias edits, I am asking for other editors.

Here is his latest: Some controversy may come from the fact a religious term is used to identify a concept, namely the laws of nature, that is usually not considered religious. However, the issue is only that two different cultures, the ancient Vedic culture and the modern science culture, use different names for the very same concept. In accordance to both cultures, the laws of nature (or whatever they were called in these ancient times) control all aspects of life, including its most tender aspects.

This is a prime example of Lumiere stepping out of the role of reporter or journalist and entering the role of TM-appologist.

Any and all help in getting this page neutral and DESCRIPTIVE appreciated. Sethie 21:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sethie, please stop always attacking me personally. I might not have expressed my thoughts perfectly and thus written something that looks innaceptable to you, but what you are doing is much less acceptable than what I am doing. Please let us stop this. Amrit 03:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I will work on these sentences later. Amrit 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sethie! How are you doing? What about this?

Some controversy may come from the fact a religious term is used to identify a concept, namely the laws of nature, that is usually not considered religious. However, the issue is only that two different cultures, the Maharishi Vedic culture and the modern science culture, use different names for the very same concept. In accordance to both cultures, the laws of nature (or gods) control all aspects of life, including its most tender aspects.

Amrit 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that these modifications address your concerns because you went into a cruisade against me, but did not actually explain where is the problem. I am trying to guess what it is, but it would be simpler if you would simply explain it. I think it is fair to say that in accordance with modern science the laws of nature control all aspects of life, including its most tender aspects. Certainly, the Maharishi Vedic culture is entitled to share this viewpoint. The point is that even if we associate gods with tender aspects of life, love, etc. they still can be nothing else than the laws of nature. Amrit 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The German study

See #No reference for the German study and #Was it included in the review of 75 studies?

Removal of section Challenges to the scientific...

See #Challenges to the scientific validity of TM Research

Marco Krohn

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

Hi.. I am a British person living in Germany and also practising the TM technique for many years. I am very familiar with the study which was conducted by the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT Ernst-Ludwig-Straße 45 6140 Bensheim and received some funding from the BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR JUGEND, FAMILIE UND GESUNDHEIT - although even a request to them did not produce any further information as to their involvement. The study was carried out in 1980. The study was never peer reviewed or published. The study involved 67 people with a direct or indirect connection with Transcendental Meditation. "Insgesamt wurden 67 Personen befragt. Alle Befragten standen direkt oder indirekt in Beziehung zur TM. " Source:http://www.agpf.de/TM-Bensheim1.htm a German anti-cult web-site (the Germans are so fanatical about this that even the Dali Lama is on their black list!!!) The former meditators: The 27 former meditaors hat practised meditation over a long period of time. "Die ehemalig Meditierenden: Die 27 befragten ehemalig Meditierenden hatten über längere Zeit die Praxis der TM-Meditation ausgeübt. " (Same source - Section 2 of the study) With reference to all the 67 is also stated:- The common starting point for all was a negative experience with the practice of mediation or its results including a negative atitude towards the TM organisation or its representatives. "Die gemeinsame Ausgangslage für alle war eine negative Erfahrung mit der Praxis der Meditation oder ihren Folgen bzw. eine ablehnende Haltung zur Organisation der TM und ihren Vertretern. " (Same source) In view of the small number of actual meditators (27) and the stated fact that those questioned already had negative attitude towards the TM technique, I do not feel that it is suitable to include unless this is pointed out.

All the best Paul Davis

Refactoring this talk page

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

I believe that the last comment of User:24.52.17.93 (see #Serious peer-reviewed respected scientific journals only please.) is really central to the most important issues in this talk page. A refactoring of this talk page is needed. Amrit 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Serious peer-reviewed respected scientific journals only please.

See #Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Please

Proposed variation on the December 24 version of the Introduction paragraph

See #Proposed Variation on the December 24 version

Removing NPOV tag

I propose to remove the NPOV tag on December 27, unless those who put it continue the discussion. Putting the tag may attract people to contribute, but it can also become a leasy way to object to an article. The correct way is to discuss in the Talk page.

I am still not fine with the "scientific" in the introduction. As TM has published several highly unscientific papers (I have given a reference to one extreme case, namely a paper about the Maharashi effect) the statement is highly misleading. Thus I do not agree with removing the NPOV tag -- mkrohn 22:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, could you give again the reference here, not in the article Amrit 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Marco Krohn again

This talk page exists for something. You should discuss your decision, especially about controversial issues, before making any subtantial modification. The Intro paragraph is currently being discuted. There was a proposal for an alternative (see above). Moreover, you were invited to explain your concern with regard to the term "scientific". You said that one paper in particular about the Maharishi effect is not scientific, and you were invited to provide the reference so that we can discuss. Please note that just saying that you disagree, without providing reference, commenting on others explanations, etc. is not what I call a discussion. Instead of discussing this Intro, you blindly reverted it to a previous version that please you better. The version that you didn't like and reverted was at the least previously explained in the talk page, so I think it does not deserve to be reverted blindly without any previous discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumiere (talk • contribs) .

Given the # of edits that have gone on, I have re-revereted Macro Krohn's revert.... Macro, if you want to work on the first paragraph, please do... and there have been lots of edits since the revert. Sethie 17:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

moved Lumiere's comments here: By the way, would you agree that we revert the last revert of Marco? I did't follow that much what did happen after that. He even reverted some of your edits. I am just tired of these reverts, but if we both agree it does make sense. Lumiere 19:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my above response, posted 2 hours before your query. Please use the categories you yourself set up. Sethie 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Sethie and Marco

I take the time to explain where I come from in the talk page. I go in details for some sections such as the German study, the Challenge on the validity of... and the introduction paragraph. We need to obtain a consensus, and we will never succeed if you ignore my efforts. Don't take my revert badly. You can see that I do reply to your comments and I try to explain myself. I would like you to consider the idea that we can succeed to work together if we understand carefully the Wikipedia policies and apply them as rigourously as possible, and leave our personal beliefs aside. An example of a personal belief is a conviction that it makes no sense that the scientific research on the Maharishi effect qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumiere (talk • contribs) .

Reversion; this type of editing not acceptable

Copy of message posted on Lumiere's talk page:-

I just came across this article. The first thing that struck me was that someone had inserted a large wodge of propoganda into the introductory paragraph (where, correct or not, it did not belong). You used the bold face incorrectly; this is generally used when highlighting the subject of the article. It is not for hammering home points.

I also notice you removed the NPOV tag. Given that you added some very POV material in a prominent position, I am reverting your edit and reinstating the NPOV tag.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Lumieres claims, the manner in which he/she added them was clearly wrong.

This edit is clearly a rant (it appears to be pro-TM, although that is beside the point) that doesn't care about breaking Wikipedia style or the structure of the article; it also removes the neutrality tag, despite the fact that the neutrality is still clearly being disputed.

I don't intend getting embroiled in the minutae of the arguments; the fact is that this editing style is transparently wrong, regardless of which side it belongs to.

Fourohfour 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(Additional: see also User talk:Lumiere) Fourohfour 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the edit that you mention was a simple revert. It doesn't appear that way because of a typo (the rv got lost). So, there may be bad things in there, but they aren't mine, not directly. In a revert, you get back the bad things of the previous version and get rid of those of the current version. This is normal. It may be that the bad things were more apparent, but you cannot judge just by looking at what is more apparent. It was not vandalism. I acted in a good faith. I could have started from their version instead of doing that revert, sure, but I felt that it will be easier to add new material after Sethie and Marco go into the talk page and discuss. Amrit 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I must accept that it looked that way to you. Perhaps it was the right thing for you to do if you really felt that I was breaking the rule. I didn't felt that I was breaking the rule: a revert is not breaking any Wikipedia rule when almost all modifications where about controversial issues that were disputed, and that the editors who made these modifications failed to discuss them in the talk page. Amrit 03:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Lumiere/Amrit; one comment above appears to be a response to something I said elsewhere. In future, please indicate what you are replying to, either by quote or link.

Your comment to Sethie appears unrelated to our discussion. Next time, please start a new section (I have done this) to keep them separate.

It is related a lot! Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done this below.

I apologise if I attributed more than I should have to you. I accept that the 'bad' edit was not written by you. However, you are still responsible for reverting to a poorer-quality, badly-structured edit.

There will be no need, on my side, for the current discussion if the problem was just that we disagreed on which version is better. You have the right to your own opinion on the article (even if you did not even read it carefully). The problem is that you accused me of vandalism and used strong words such it is a rant, etc. Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You also accepted that your motive was to get attention (rather than because you wanted to improve the article). (See "My goal was only to encourge discussion")

I was referring to the edit taken it its context, not just the edit taken out of context. The context is that there was a tag in the talk page saying that substantial modifications should be first discussed in the talk page. I reverted controversial edits that were done without discussion in the talk page. Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

More importanyly, the "rather than improving..." is in your imagination. The edits that I reverted were controversial, but also they were not supported by reputable sources and removed useful information instead of trying to improve on them. Just the fact that the style is not good is not sufficient to blindly remove information. Reverting these edits was an improvement. It was subject to misinterpretation, I can give that to you, but yet it was an improvement.

Whilst your motives were not vandalism (and I did not consider treating it as such first time round), Wikipedia articles should not be vehicles for such motives.

This discussion started to become very heavy after your direct accusation, but the wording and the tone that you used before the direct accusation were almost as bad as the direct accusation. Will you agree to remove this entire discussion from Wikipedia and stop it? Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I consider the version you reverted to to be unacceptable because it removed the "neutrality" tag when the issues had not been resolved.

Even this viewpoint is debatable. A neutrality tag is to be used when there is an ongoing discussion in the talk page, and there was none. One should not put a POV tag and not discuss. Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you will be deleting our discussion from your talk page..... Personally, I believe that talk pages should be neutral forums for discussing user behaviour, and should not "belong" to that user... but many users disagree with this. As I wish to discuss this on neutral ground, I will post comments for you here in the future. Fourohfour 14:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, not as a permanent contribution, and I think we should stop it. Also, I start to ask myself what is your motive in insisting to make this discussion public? What do you want to accomplish? If it is to improve the article, why don't you read the article and the talk page and discuss that instead? Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My message to Sethie below can be put in a new section, great, but it still remains very much related to our discussion. Lumiere 19:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that this discussion is counter-productive; I think we've said everything we need to say, and we should stop here.

BTW, the "user talk" pages are not really private; anyone can change or read them. Their main benefit is that discussion related to a particular user can be kept in one place. Their main problem (in my personal opinion) is that some users remove comments they dislike on "their" pages; that's their choice, but *if* this happens, I prefer to conduct discussion in a more neutral place. That's all there is to it!

Bear in mind that (for the most part) although we can remove material, other editors can still read earlier versions of the article/discussion. Fourohfour 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course! I meant that the above discussion does not belong in the current version of Wikipedia, especially not in this talk page that is already much too long. We will remove it in a day or two, just in case someone was following it with great interest, we never know (: Lumiere 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to blank your user talk page. Do not blank this discussion.

Sethie 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I see that you intend to bring the debate at the behavioral level. I will not put myself on the defensive anymore. I am not ashamed of anything I did, and I will survive these accusations. Moreover, what I see is that most editors do not mix behavior issues with content issues. So, I think that you are losing your time, if your goal is to improve the content. Lumiere 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere's request to Sethie

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

Dr Otis study

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

Anti-cult Vs pro TM : let us take advantage of Wikipedia policies

There are currently three frequent editors in this article and some very appreciated occasional editors that seem to watch the situation and do some occasional but important edits. Two of the frequent editors, Sethie and Marco, are more anti-cult oriented and have the opinion that TM is a cult and the other one, me, is pro-TM. I believe that the only way we will succeed to work together is by putting aside our respective campain or cruisade, and focus on an approach that is more suitable in Wikipedia. The first step is to obtain a common understanding of the Wikipedia policies in the context of this article. I have written a few comments in reference to these policies in this talk page, often in the context of specific proposals. I would appreciate if Marco and Sethie were to read these comments and provide some feedbacks.

The key point in my opinion is to only include contributions that have a reputable source, but this is not a trivial point. One has to read the Wikipedia policies, especially the Verifiability policy, and related guidelines to understand what it means. We should have a common understanding of these policies, so also read my comments and provide feedbacks.

Recently, Marco made the following edit. I think it was inadequate because he ignored all my comments and reverted every edits I did without first discussing it in the talk page. Most of the edits that he reverted were supported by the Verifiability policy.

Why did you replace "It has become a worldwide movement, with two to six million people having learned the technique" with "It has become a worldwide movement, with more than five million people having learned the technique"?

The most reliable source for this information is the TM organization itself. What we can do is to add a reference at the end of the sentence so that readers can see from where it comes from. I do not see that you can provide a reputable source to contradict this number. Moreover, if you were to provide such a reputable source, we will simply remove the number from the Intro because it is not the place for controversial statements. Also, I am not saying that it was your goal, but what is innaceptable is to attempt to discredit in a subtle way the credibility of the TM organization by contradicting any kind of info it provides. Lumiere 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove: "The organization has attempted to keep secret the precise method used in selecting the mantra, but ex-TM teachers have stated that choice of mantra is based simply on the age of the person at the time of initiation. [...]"?

No reputable source. This is discussed at many place in the talk page. TM-ex organizations are not reputable sources. Lumiere 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to Randi? (BTW I have read the paper concerning the M. effect and honestly this is a joke and not scientific at all). Unfortunately someone is removing the reference to TMs unscientific publication all the time ...

See section James Randi's book. Lumiere 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regards -- mkrohn 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

James Randi

See #James Randi's book

thanks, but unfortunately there is not much information provided. -- mkrohn 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It said that it will come. Now, it is there. Enjoy! Lumiere 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Please comment here on any of the issues raised via RfC:

~Lumiere's removal of the NPOV tag (I have lost count now how many times)

see #Latest on POV tag removal Lumiere 00:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

~Lumiere's claim that a statement in a sworn affidavit by a former member of the TM movement is not a legit source, because it is not published in a peer review scientific journal

See #Challenges to the scientific validity of TM Research, especially the subsection #Sworn affidavit and TM-ex web sites VS Wikipedia policies Lumiere 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

~Lumiere's claim that a study conducted by the German government on TM is not scientific enough, because it was not published in "a peer reviewded scientific journal" (btw the TM movement sued to try and suppress this study in Germany, I hope they loose here as well!)

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

~Lumiere's claim that James Randi's investigation of TM claims is not scientific enough (i.e. not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal- Lumiere's personal mantra)

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

~Lumiere's claim that any and all sites critical of TM are not reputibalbe sources, even sites created by former TM teachers

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

I have tried to discuss these and other issues with Lumiere and believe outside input would be helpful. The last time I used RfC, Lumiere wanted the article to read that "TM improved ALL areas of life," and he conceded to a more realistic, rational and honest statement, I hope this RfC can create some similar clarity. Sethie 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest on POV tag removal

I am also unclear as to the origin of Lumiere's belief that placing a POV DEMANDS an "intention" to discuss issues? As an editor, if I see a page that is not POV, I work on it some, and if it still POV in my opinion, I tag it. Not sure this is a contract to participated.

My point was that, in accordance with Wikipedia policies or guidelines, a POV tag is an indication of ongoing discussions. However, it does not say that the objective is that whoever puts a POV tag should intend to participate. So, I removed this issue from the Rfc list of issues. Nevertheless, I still feel that a POV tag should not be used as a lasy way to object to an article. The correct way is to use the talk page. Lumiere 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the veracity of this charge, I invite anyone to look here and decided whether or not I "intended to discuss" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_meditation&action=history Sethie 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You did indicate explicitly a few times that you are stopping communication with me, while the POV tag was there. I must admit that I also felt that I should stop communication with you many times. Lumiere 00:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Sethie's issue about me removing the POV tag, the fact that there is a dispute does not mean that the ugly POV tag should necessarily be added. There is trade off here. One admin also removed the POV tag [13], indicating that the dispute did not look so bad (without checking with anyone). It just shows that we care about the article. There is no rule that says that removing a POV tag requires that you first obtain a consensus. There are situations where someone can use his own judgment, especially at times where the other says that he does not want to discuss (as Sethie indicated a few times). It was all done in good faith. It is only Sethie that wants to make a big Rfc case out of this. I don't care that much about the POV tag, even though it looks ugly and don't like the idea that it can become a lasy way to object to an article. The correct way is to use the talk page. Lumiere 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources for both sides: pro-TM and TM-ex & anti-cult organizations

The following paragraph is an edit from myself of a contribution from 24.52.17.93.

Scientific research on the benefits of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation was conducted in many different universities and published in hundreds of respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journals over the last 35 years. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published papers in peer-reviewed journals such as The American Journal of Cardiology ( )-[this study was funded by the US government], The American Journal of Hypertension ( ) and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation ( ).

I finally took it out because in my personal opinion the first sentence does not have a reputable source for the proposed statement. The TM organization cannot be taken as a reputable source for statements about scientific research done on TM. It can be a valid source for other statements on TM such as the number of people that learned TM because no one else knows, but not for statements about scientific research on TM.

However, this is just an example of a general principle that I hope will be appreciated by both sides, especially by the TM-ex and anti-cult side, but also on the pro-TM side. We have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Not every thing that appears in some web site of a TM-ex organization or even in a book from a notable man, etc. fits in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, not every thing that makes perfect sense in the TM web site fits in a Wikipedia article. This is not saying that these sources have no place in the process of communication on the WEB. In the sameway, original research is very fine and useful, but it does not have its place in an encyclopedia.

The Wikipedia policies are very well done and I think that if we try to understand and follow them, we might actually succeed to work together. Honestly, in the back of my mind, I do have some serious doubts that we will succeed because it appears to be quite a challenge for the TM-ex and anti-cult side. They don't seem to get the point that TM-ex web sites, publishers of books or periodicals without some form of scientific peer review (i.e. without any form of well established reputation in the scientific arena) and other similar sources are not acceptable to support scientific allegations in Wikipedia. Still, I am trying to pass the idea, no matter how small are the chances of success. Lumiere 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About last edit of Sethie on the JAMA paper

Sethie changed

"It should be pointed out that the scientific validity of this study per se was never contested, and JAMA still ..."

to

"It should be pointed out that the scientific validity of this study per se was never contested, only it's central thesis that Maharishi Ayurveda was less expensive then standard health care. JAMA still ..."

This edit contains a strong statement about what is the central thesis of the JAMA paper of Chopra and al. I decided to take this edit out until we can verify that indeed the central thesis of Chopra's article was not about the health benefits of Ayur veda, but about the cost of Ayur veda. It seems surprising. Lumiere 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the German study

We are still waiting for some reputable source that comments on the German study. If you have one, please explain why it is a reputable source. Also, make sure that the statement in the article reflects the actual comment that is provided in this reputable source, if you find one.

By the way, I do not agree with the idea of criticizing the German study, except if the critic comes from a reputable source. At this point, the statement about the German study and the recent addition "unpublished (and thus unsubstantiated)", both are not acceptable in Wikipedia.

If we do not have a reputable source to support the German study, it should be taken out instead of adding a critic about the current source.

By the way, I asked a friend in Germany if he heard of the governmental institution that conducted the study. He just replied that he never heard of it. He only commented that it must be important because it received money for the study. I am thinking that it might be important, but only for one given political agenda. Lumiere 02:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi.. I am a British person living in Germany and also practising the TM technique for many years. I am very familiar with the study which was conducted by the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT Ernst-Ludwig-Straße 45 6140 Bensheim and received some funding from the BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR JUGEND, FAMILIE UND GESUNDHEIT - although even a request to them did not produce any further information as to their involvement. The study was carried out in 1980. The study was never peer reviewed or published. The study involved 67 people with a direct or indirect connection with Transcendental Meditation. "Insgesamt wurden 67 Personen befragt. Alle Befragten standen direkt oder indirekt in Beziehung zur TM. " Source:http://www.agpf.de/TM-Bensheim1.htm a German anti-cult web-site (the Germans are so fanatical about this that even the Dali Lama is on their black list!!!) The former meditators: The 27 former meditaors hat practised meditation over a long period of time. "Die ehemalig Meditierenden: Die 27 befragten ehemalig Meditierenden hatten über längere Zeit die Praxis der TM-Meditation ausgeübt. " (Same source - Section 2 of the study) With reference to all the 67 is also stated:- The common starting point for all was a negative experience with the practice of mediation or its results including a negative atitude towards the TM organisation or its representatives. "Die gemeinsame Ausgangslage für alle war eine negative Erfahrung mit der Praxis der Meditation oder ihren Folgen bzw. eine ablehnende Haltung zur Organisation der TM und ihren Vertretern. " (Same source) In view of the small number of actual meditators (27) and the stated fact that those questioned already had negative attitude towards the TM technique, I do not feel that it is suitable to include unless this is pointed out.

All the best Paul Davis (English living in Germany 20 years)

Transcendatal Meditation in popular culture

Kurt Vonnegut's novel Breakfast of Champions reveals an actual mantra.

The above seems irrelevant. Any comment welcome! Lumiere 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that section. Many wikipedia articles have a popular culture section. Like Nuclear weapons had Nuclear weapons in popular culture, which became a separate article. Likewise, there is Zero-point energy, and a section on Cultural references to ZPE, which is about movies and novels. Stuff that is important to the culture appears in various media and commentaries. So a section on how TM has permeated western popular culture seemed appropiate. The reference to Vonnegut was meant to be only a beginning. Another I just thought of was Charles Lloyd made a jazz record about 1974, called "Transcendental Meditation" ( "A. M. and the P. M., T. M. ..."). How can cultural allusions to the topic be irrelevant? GangofOne 08:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It definatley is relevant, Lumiere just doesn't like it, nor does he spend time on many other wiki pages, so he is not very aware of customs or procedures on other pages. Please put it back in along with the record. And I will hunt for the Woody Allen movie that has a joke about TM in it. Sethie 17:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sethie again attributed to me intention that I do not have. I followed the link and, I might not have looked carefully, but I could not find anything, not a joke or anything else, about TM in the web page. Jokes and similar items from the popular culture are interesting, but of course we do not want to disguise some unsupported claim inside a joke. I am not saying that it was the case in the previous link. To the contrary, there was simply nothing. Lumiere 19:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked again, and still did not find anything. By the way, if it was just that a guy had revealed his mantra, this would not fit in. That is not a joke. However, I could not even find that someone said my mantra is XXX. Lumiere 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Breakfest of Champions, not a wiki about the book, then report back. Not relevant? Vonnegut one of the biggies of 20th century American Literautre. Breakfest of Champions was a best seller.Sethie 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting that the link will talk about the connection with TM. I could not believe that the point was only that a mantra was revealed. Now, I see that the actual point is only that the book unveil a mantra. Well, though I think the idea of the section is good, I think this particular event is not interesting, and this has nothing to do with my evaluation of the novel itself. Lumiere 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

And if it wasn't Charles Lloyd, it was Paul Horn, but I think Lloyd. GangofOne 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Lumiere

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

It is a good idea, but it is hard to implement. Sometimes I do many small edits, even revert myself, etc., but all of this in one small paragraph. How do you count? A given day, someone else than you might do many controversial edits. Do I respond to only a few of them? You might have noticed that recently I slowed down. So, perhaps there is no need for an official rule. I agree that is good practice to minimize the number of edits that we do each day. This allows others to keep up.

This is relevant to the TM theory

The following sentence, which is not from me and has been there for a very long time, was taken out by Sethie, despite the fact that I told her it was relevant:

This presupposes a belief that it is desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly, in line with arguments advanced by Socrates in Plato's Meno and in The Republic.

It is relevant because it argues that the fundamental objective is not new. Sethie, put it back please. Lumiere 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, as long as you call me she, I will call you "it."

Fine! Lumiere 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked it to provide a REASON or explination why this is was relevant and thus far it has not been able to. All it did was say, "I think it is relevant."

The reasons why it is not able to do are obvious. The paragraph is about how connecting with Creative Intellegence creates spontaneous movement towards harmonious behavior. The sentence Lumiere wants in says: it is DESIRABLE to act well. i.e. there are better consequences if you do, it is a better CHOICE.

Please, if you can find a refference in Plato that says reality is harmonious, or that connecting with reality creates spontaeous harmonious behavior, that would be relevant. The little I have studied of Plato makes no such refference.Sethie 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sethie, but there are at the least two people that thinks this sentence is relevant: the one who wrote it first, and me. I just explained above why it is relevant, and moreover it is self evident from the text. You somehow argue that Plato did not support the teaching of TM. I guess that you are wrong, but it is beside the point because we don't claim that Plato says the samething as us in this sentence. Lumiere 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Two people thinking somthing does not make it so, nor do exclimantions- it is self evident! Stating "the fundamental objective is no new," merely means that ANY thing which seeks to get people to behave better is relevant!

If you can actually show a connection between any of Plato's ideas and TM without just saying, "They are relevant," I would love for it to be in there.Sethie 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence is about the concept that "it is desirable to act well, and undesirable to act badly". The TM theory says that the technique gives you that. It is a very simple connection, but there is something deep even behind simple things. I sincerely think that way. It is actually good practice to say simple things when we feel it is important. Why is this a problem for you? This is very curious. Lumiere 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me some TM literature or quote that says TM technique gives you "it is desirable to act well and undesirable to act badly." I thought TM connected you to Creative Intellegence, and through that connection, without effort or choice one acted well? It is frustrating sometimes to have to back up things with sources... and yet I know you value only have factual statements in articles, as I do. If/when you can DOCUMENT the relevance, I'll be happy to put the Plato statement back. Sethie 02:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant that TM gives us what is desirable, that is, acting well. As far as giving a source for that, perhaps I should cite you. You just said "... TM ... one acted well". The mechanisms are not the point. The point is that at the end it gives us what is desirable, the goal: acting well. This is why I said that the point is that this goal is acknowledged in Plato. Again I am not claiming that it is a very complicated connection. Lumiere 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your asssertion is: TM gives us what is desirabble, acting well. i.e. practice TM and you will act well.

Plato says, it is desirable to act well. i.e. act well, because there are benefits to it.

Although am I flattered that you would want to cite me, I don't think Wiki talk pages count under WP:V. Sethie 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere's recent 1st paragraph

If you are going to lace the first paragraph with so many pro-TM sources, to maintain neutrality, it will be neccesary to put in some contrary.

How about about couple, i.e 1 or 2 in the intro paragraph and put the others elsewhere? Sethie 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to acknowledge Lumiere for making changes on the paragraph based on my suggestions and request.Sethie 03:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

More reputable sources means more NPOV

In order to support the claim that TM has gained acceptance in public schools, governmental institutions and in the area of scientific research I provided a few reputable sources. I think that to support well each point, we need to provide more than one source. Sethie deleted many of these sources. Compare my version

It has received support from public schools [14][15][16], governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) [17][18] and scientific research. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals such as The American Journal of Cardiology (- this study was funded by the US government, The American Journal of Hypertension (and The Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (]).

with Sethie's version

It has received support from public schools [19], governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) [20] and scientific research. In the last couple of years alone, there have been published scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals.

There is not even on example to back up the fact that there has been published studies in peer-reviewed journal! She took out the NBC show Today! I think that having more reputable sources to backup a claim makes it more NPOV, because not relying on one opinion, but on many opinions instead.

I have tried to communicate with it ("Lumiere") that my contention is with placing these in the first paragraph, not with them itself. However, it seems to be unbale to process this information.... not sure why.

I chalenge it to find another wiki article with so many sources IN THE INTRO PARAGRAPH. All I ask of it is to move these citations elsewhere, not take them out!

Lumiere is aware of my actual gender, yet for some reason feels the need to call me "she" so... hence my calling Lumiere an "it."Sethie 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

siddhi or sidhi

I see both spellings in the article TM-Sidhi and siddhi. Isn't 2 ds right? GangofOne 04:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is TM-Sidhi, not TM-Siddhi. The sanskrit word is siddhi. So, what is written is actually correct. Lumiere 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that because "TM-Sidhi" is a trademark or brandname, whereas siddhi is the regular word? GangofOne 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Links

Regarding the links I added. My attitude towards this article is that there is *never* going to be a version accepted by both sides as the "truth"; rather, people should be given the information, and be made aware of where it is from. They can then make up their own minds on TM.

I consider the (potential) biases of any hosts to be noteworthy too, as any site which is not 100% neutral is likely to favour articles promoting its own views. That's a fact of life in any field. I would appreciate hearing of any better suggestions on how to express this, as I intend indicating this beside the links.

Regarding the onwww.net "propoganda" statement; well, I'm not surprised you hold that view since they distance themselves from official TM. As I said, the reader should be given the information and be allowed to make up their own minds, hence the red link.

By the way, red links are *not* "bad" links if the article they (potentially) link to would be worth inclusion in Wikipedia (if it were written). Please do not remove them solely on that basis.

Fourohfour 10:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

Critics of TM refer to a paper that reviews 75 studies on various meditation techniques (of which TM was a part of this eclectic mix of techniques) [21]). The study found that 63% of meditators experienced negative side effects, including panic, depression, increase in tension and loss of motivation, among other. One methodological challenge this review faced was that "None of the studies reviewed tried to disentangle the effects of meditation per se from the influence of the presenting problem or/and premorbid personality of the subjects."

Note that this is a review of 75 studies, which obviously contained a lot of positive results about TM. The sentence "The study found that 63% ..." was added by Sethie. Sethie is biased because he only reads the reports from TM-ex and skeptic organizations. Lumiere 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Jama paper and reports: This is guilt by association

The article, which was never retracted, raised questions about the integrity of at least some of the reports from scientists involved in the TM movement.

This is one article, and other reports should be considered separately. Also the issue was not even about its scientific content, and this is not clear from the sentence. Please provide a reputable source with no conflict of interest. Lumiere 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere's statement is misleading. Please review the JAMA article (of which I am the author). The investigatory article clearly examined the intergrity of a number of TM's highest ranking researchers and documented many examples of their seriously misleading if not outright deceptive statements.

I've made a number of editing changes to the article to improve the accuracy of the account of JAMA's expose of the TM marketing tactics and how the movement was "hoodwinking" both science and lay media. Askolnick 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point was that the statement did not show up as if it was again using the same Jama article as a source, but seemed to be an independent statement without a source instead. If you want to further cite the Jama paper, I suppose you can, though try to be concise-- this is just one paper motivated by an issue that happenned 15 years ago and we cannot include too much of that single old paper in the article. In particular, if the point was made already, there is no need to repeat it. Also, make sure that you are very close to the Jama paper because there might have been a peer-review process that censored what can be said in the paper, and we want to stick to that. Lumiere 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow- Andrew- welcome on board!!!! I am so grateful to have an editor who is used to dealing with the TM organization!

As you can see, the TM propaganda machine is at work on this wiki article. Now that I know who you are, I INSIST that you stick around. :) Sethie 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

totaldispute

I do not believe the following statements are factually accurate:

"It has received support from governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH)." Specifically, the cite does not contain any statements from the NIH.

the money was attributed by the NIH. If this is not a support, what is a support? Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Determining that something is support or not support requires that I think about it. That is a violation of WP:NOR. Either you can find a quote of someone saying it was NIH supported (in which case an explanation that they recieved a grant would be appropriate), or you can change the statement to "recieved an NIH grant" and provide evidence of such. Support implies support for viewpoint, not monetary support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes are used as facts - specifically, "inaugurated a 'movement to spiritually regenerate the world'" This needs to be rewritten such that it says inagurated a movement that x said woud "blah"

I think this was written by an opponent to TM, but I think you see a problem where there is none. The statement says that "to spiritually regenerate the world" was the objective of the "movement", and this fact can easily be sourced. Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do so. I have removed the quote in anticipation of such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"none of the studies reviewed tried to disentangle the effects of meditation per se from the influence of the presenting problem or/and premorbid personality of the subjects." is not attributed

It is a quote from the paper. It is easy to put the reference if it was not there already. Lumiere 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please attribute quotes to the speaker. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is a quote from the paper means that the auhors wrote it -- no need to insist on that. Lumiere 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement did not make it clear what paper it came from. If you want to reinclude it, please cite your source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many other problems. I would {{sofixit}} but I will wait for responses on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

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

You have found a few of Lumiere's propaganda which I have been fighting for over a month. If you hang out here, long with askolnick and a few other editors it'll shape up real quick. I am not familiar with the procedure you mentioned, i'll read up on it. Sethie 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Understood. Sethie 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving onwards

"However, the requirements of the West made him adopt a more secular approach in the 1970s" Needs sourcing.

"He focused on western science both to show theoretical parallels with his thinking and practical verification of the results of TM." Needs sourcing.

"five million people have learned the technique, though not all continue to practice it." Needs sourcing.

I have {{fact}}ed the paragraph in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph after "Procedures and theory" was hopelessly WP:NOR/NPOV. If someone said something, quote them. If practioners believe something, quote them. Do not have Wikipedia saying "Alongside the settling down of mental activity, the body also settles to a state of deep rest, and this allows for the release of deep-seated stresses from the system."Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of scientific claims rejected by mainstream science, I have tagged this article as category pseudoscience. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the stress paragraph for WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the religion section for NPOV and NOR. One fact was {{Fact}}ed, and I will remove it in 24 hours unless cited. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with most of the recent edits

I decided not to lose my time in an edit war. Unless there is an agreement about the issues that are already mentioned in this talk page, all these edits, which only create new issues, will never be a basis for a removal of the NPOV tag. I am not going to spend time on the additional issues created by these edits. Lumiere 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the uncited information tommorow. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The records will all be in the history of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested in the policies or guidelines that you take what you modify in the talk page. It makes communication easier, which is very much needed at this time. Lumiere 07:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You will see statements about what I have changed in the section directly above this. Hipocrite 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First para

I have edited the first para to try to improve the sentence flow without affecting the meaning. However its final sentence is ambiguous:

Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists that conducted the studies and question the possible negative effects of TM.

This could either mean:

Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists who [conducted the studies and questioned the possible negative effects of TM].

Or:

Critics have questioned the integrity of the scientists that conducted the studies, and question the possible negative effects of TM. (Note the comma placement)

That is, it's not clear what the critics are questioning: the scientists, or the possible negative effects. Since I don't know which, perhaps someone can reword this sentence to remove the ambiguity. --BillC 11:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, which I assume was neutral. However, note that the tag totallydisputed implies that the article is not stable and may change significantly in the near future. This includes the first paragraph. Lumiere 17:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexism section grammar smoothing

Pronoun reference, etc. I believe that I changed the meaning of the text very little, if at all. As for the actual content, the inclusion of the generalization about "ancient vedic society" seems a bit like spin, and the significance of the ladies/men distinction seems slightly over-zealous. can't the reader decide for he(r)self what is significant about the terminology? Delete me if I'm stepping on someone's foot. -RGL

WP:CITE

If the study was conducted by a youth group, please cite a source for this statement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is an originalcopy I have from a relative of one of those who undertook thestudy. Everyoneelse can look at the full study at http://www.agpf.de/TM-Bensheim1.htm. The statement about negative attitude is contained at section 2.2. You will need a native German speaker since it is in German - don't rely on an online translator, they don't do a very good job. You are correct to say it was published - I did not post that part, it was already there - but only privately and in limited numbers. It was never peer reviewed. It was not conducted by the Government they only provided some finance in the way that all sorts of groups can apply to it for funding. All the best Paul Davis

The explanation for this last sentence is that one can easily argue that internal reports of research institute or other governemental or private organizations do not count as publications. To publish means "bring to the public attention". Certainly, the standard way is to send it to a publisher. If an organization wants to publish it, it sends it to a publisher. Makes sense? --Lumière 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)