Jump to content

Talk:History of Transcendental Meditation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus for article creation

[edit]

Was there consensus from the editors involved in the TM and related articles for the creation of this article? --BwB (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion about the reorganization at talk:Transcendental Meditation, so let's keep it there. If there are any issues with the contents of this article, here and now, this would be the place to talk about those.   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. This article is really inferior quality, and should be extensively rewritten by someone knowledgeable about the subject matter. To begin with, I think we need to discuss among ourselves what the overall tenor and organization of the article should be, before anyone invests the kind of time that would be needed to do a major rewrite. As it stands, there is a lot that is misleading or just plain wrong. Here are some examples:
"... detachment from the material world and the achievement of nirvana"--Maharishi emphasized 200% of life throughout his career, not "detachment from the material world." Additionally, Maharishi had a well-developed description of the stages of enlightenment. Why not use his preferred vocabulary, rather than extraneous terms like "nirvana"?
"... identification with the counter-culture ...." This is misleading, since Maharishi did not identify with the couter-culture at all, acknowledging only that it indicated a spiritual longing. Nor did he feel that the counter-culture movement was very responsible.
"... Popular Religious Phase ..." Maharishi did not identify his teaching as "religious," because he thought that considerations of dogma, belief or philosophy would distract from the primary value of what he wanted to convey, which was direct transcendental experience, regardless of one's religious or philosophical orientation. Characterizing Maharishi's teaching as "religious" obscures this central point. And although we should acknowledge the controversies, and the hostile perspective of some commentators, our presentation should be straightforward and factual.
"... except among its inner core of followers ..." This suggests duplicity. Certainly some people have made this accusation, but our article should not endorse this perspective.
"... meandering from a "plastic export Hinduism" to a non-devotional meditation method marketed as a "scientific technique", and then back to a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" zig-zagging back and forth, depending on the receptivity of the target audience." This is not NPOV.
"Cults, World Religions and the Occult" should not be our authoritative source for information about the Origins of the TM movement.
"The brief association of the Maharishi with The Beatles in 1967 to 1968 was of tremendous consequence for the movement." I think this claim is misleading on three counts: (1) The Beatles had no influence on any core teachings or principles of the movement, (2) the scientific research, the organizations responsible for teaching Maharishi's programs and the establishment of Maharishi International University and the many other schools and universities have been immeasurably more consequential for Maharishi's outreach, and (3) the term "brief association" is itself misleading since Paul Mccartney and Ringo Starr still support the movement (as did George Harrison until his death).
"Maharishi began TM’s shift from religious to scientific." Misleading for the reasons explained above.
" ... in becoming a 'full blown craze' ...." This may have been appropriate language in the 1970s, but from our perspective nearly 40 years later, I think the fluctuations in Maharishi's popularity from that period should be discussed from a more neutral, factual perspective.
"... making incursions into ..." Why not simply, "gaining acceptance by," or something equally neutral?
"... were severely impacted by the decision of the US court in 1977 declaring the movement to be religious, and the teaching of TM in the New Jersey schools in breach of the First Amendment separation of church and state" The significance of this 30-year old court case is over-emphasized in other TM-related articles as well. Times have changed since the 1970s, and American society in general has become more tolerant of practices that derive from other cultures, whether it's acupuncture, tai chi, martial arts, yoga or various kinds of meditation.
"... and requiring numerous commitments beyond Transcendental Meditation alone to continue on the path to enlightenment." This is false, as stated, and should be revised or omitted.
"The success of the TM movement following its association with the Beatles resulted in immense personal wealth for the Maharishi ...." Aside from the misleading emphasis on the Beatles, the reference to personal wealth for Maharishi is false. He never had any personal ownership of any of the movement's assets.
I hope this preliminary analysis is useful to the group and may provide a starting point for discussions on how to reorganize and improve the article as a whole.Hickorybark (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do that analysis. I agree that this article needs a complete overhaul. However I think some of the points raised here may reflect an incomplete perspective. For example, MMY and the TMM were identified with the counter-culture, even if that was not the intent or desire of MMY. However I don't think that the best approach would be stubbing. Rather, the first step might be to assemble the best available sources. I know that there are a number of movement sources, but they should be used with caution for several reasons. There is also widespread coverage in scholarly and popular books and papers, and in the mainstream media. The most prominent of those should receive the greatest weight, when there's a question about that.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any contemporary references associating MMY or TMM with the counter-culture movement? I think the association is uninformative, at best, because the term "counter-culture" is so vague. Where it does have definite connotations--for example experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs or widespread student protests--there is no connection to MMY or TMM. I think to introduce such an uninformative association would require so much clarification and explanation that it is probably not worthwhile. If you know of a contemporary reference, however, I would be happy to look at what the author thinks is relevant.Hickorybark (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, we use plenty of non-contemporary sources. There are circumstances in which we'd prefer newer sources to older sources, but that doesn't mean older sources are automatically invalid. Second, whether MMY had any real connection to the counter-culture, or only a perceived connection, it was widely reported. For example, a counter-culture Rock 'n' Roll band called The Beatles were supposedly associated with MMY. Maybe there was actually no connection. I only know what I read. Lastly, IIRC, there is at least one source in which MMY complains about being connected to the counter-culture, so apparently he was aware of it.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that older sources aren't automatically invalid, but 40 years ago the counter-culture was a prominent sociological phenomenon, much discussed in the media. The fact that some people associated with the counter-culture were attracted to Maharishi and TM is much less noteworthy to our readers now, than it would have been if we had been writing back then. Still, I think it could be mentioned as long as its importance is not exaggerated and Maharishi's reservations are described. Similar considerations apply to how we discuss the Beatles. Their significance to contemporary readers is so much less than it was forty years ago, that their tangential association with TM should not be given more prominence in our articles than it deserves. The Beatles are not as important to readers now, and their influence on the TM movement should not be exaggerated.Hickorybark (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, nothing should be exaggerated. However in this history we're probably doing the opposite. We hardly even mention the counter-culture, and devote two short sentences to the Beatles. Rather than worrying about things that we devote too much space to, maybe we should focus on the events that we omit entirely. For example, as I read various sources certain training courses seem to have importance within the movement, such as Mallorca, Fiuggi, etc. But the first thing we should do is assemble the best sources. Newspaper sources are OK for events, though they sometimes get mixed up about the fine points of philosophic or spiritual issues. However scholarly accounts are considered the best.   Will Beback  talk  18:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonorama Society

[edit]

I haven't tracked this back to its original source, but a couple of books assert that the Maharishi founded the Sonorama Society in 1959 to spread his message.[1][2] I'd like to get more information or confirmation about this before adding it, so I'm just parking this here.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's this entry in a mysterious online book:

  • The Sonorama Society was formed after the first trip at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to the United States in 1959 and was devoted to the Maharishi's guru, ... The Society was formed as an association of persons who are practicing transcendental meditation. Sonorama Society members were tied together by correspondence lessons and irregular contact with those who have mastered the techniques. Headquarters were established in Los Angeles under the leadership of R. Manley Whitman, the sponsor-director. The society lasted only a few years; its work was superceded by the growth of the TM movement, now organized by the World Plan Executive Council. [3]

That has plenty of detail, but I don't see any publication information or even an author.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonorama Society is also mentioned in this book: Olsen, James Stuart, Historical Dictionary of the 1970s, Greenwood Publishing Group, (1999) p 342 [4] Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

[edit]

Is this article about the history of the Transcendental Meditation technique or the Transcendental Meditation movement? --BwB (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be better to have 2 articles - "History of the TM technique" and "History of the TTM" or to simple have the history of each as part of the main article? This article seems confused to me. --BwB (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two are very closely bound - neither could exist without the other. But I agree that it can be improved. Since this was first compiled I've obtained a lot more research on the topic. There are even some new scholarly sources published this year.
What part do you find confusing?   Will Beback  talk  10:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have some time in the coming days to go thru the article thoroughly and then I'll respond more fully to you question. --BwB (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]
  • The history of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program and the Transcendental Meditation movement began when Maharishi Mahesh Yogi first taught the technique in the late 1950s, and continues beyond his death (2008). Although he had initiated thousands of people, the Maharishi began a program to create more teachers of the technique as a way to accelerate the rate of creating new meditators. The Maharishi began a series of world tours which promoted the technique, and this, the celebrities who practiced the technique, and later scientific research endorsing the technique helped to popularize the technique in the 1960s and '70s. As well, in the 1970s advanced meditative techniques were introduced. The movement has grown to encompass schools and universities that teach the practice, and includes many associated programs offering health and well-being based on the Maharishi's interpretation of the Vedic traditions. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of individuals and the Maharishi was overseeing a large multinational movement.
  • Despite organizational changes and while additional techniques were added, the Transcendental Meditation technique itself remained relatively unchanged.
  • Among the first organizations to promote TM were the Spiritual Regeneration Movement and the International Meditation Society. In the U.S., major organizations included Student International Meditation Society, World Peace Executive Council, Maharishi Vedic Education Corporation, and Global Country of World Peace. The successor to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and head of the Global Country of World Peace, is Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam.

This intro is an inadequate summary of the article. My thought is that should probably include the creation of major institutions and the introduction of new technologies, along with major events, in a two or three paragraph chronology. Something like, SIMS was founded in 1965. The Beatles were initiated in 1967 and brought global attention to TM. In 1972 the first scientific study on TM was published. MIU was founded in 1973... and so on. Other thoughts on how to proceed?   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. --BwB (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine as long as we do it as a summary and with out too much detail. Several of the articles have way too much detail in the lead seems to me. I'd like to add content to TM movement in the History of the TM Movement section. TM technique and TM movement are pretty entangled too so any clarity here will help with the Movement article.(olive (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Clarify?

[edit]
  • The official TM web site reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction in 1958.[1][clarification needed]
  1. ^ Offocial TM web site

An editor added a {clarify} tag without specifying what needs clarification.[5] The sentence seems pretty straightforward so I can't guess what is at issue. Could someone please clarify the clarify tag?   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the home page there is no mention of the numbmer of TM students. What page of the web site gives the meditating population? --BweeB (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, there is or was a problem with linking to subpages of that website. Is there any part of that assertion which is unclear, or is this is just a sourcing issue? If the latter, then {Failed verification}"[not in citation given]" is probably the better template. {Clarify} is for issues of neutrality and factual accuracy.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll change it to {failed verification}. --BweeB (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For future reference, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see support for this material in the source

[edit]

I was just reading pages 88-91 in Bainbridge and don't see where it supports this material:

", and tensions within the movement increased rather than membership, because most dedicated movement members were TM teachers, whose financial and social status depended on a flow of new students, which had stopped"

I don't see anything about tensions within the movement, for example. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here's what I believe is the source material being summarized:
  • Fourth, a group that fails to recruit many new members, but is committed to doing so, may turn ever more strongly to compensators in response to this failure to gain the reward of membership growth. Chapter 7 reports that the Traqnscendental Meditation movement turned toward increased emphasis upon unusual supernatural compensators, thus increasnig its tension, after recruitment of new members collapsed. Most dedicated members were teachers of the TM meditation technique, and their hopes for increasing financial rewards and social status depended upon a steadily increasing flow of students. So when the students practically stopped coming, the movement grew in tension rather than in membership (Bainbridge and Jackson 1981).
    • Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The sociology of religious movements. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91202-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    • p. 82
  • For the innermost members of the movement, TM's philosophy shaded over into religion, and advanced indoctrination included study of the Bhagavad-Gita and the Rig Veda. But the religious nature of the movement intensified immediatedly after the rapid decline of initations that began in 1976. So long as the movement was growing, meditation teachers could imagine they had embarked on a new and profitable profession that would provide many rewards as they trained all Americans in a scientifically proven technique. That is, they had faith in the secular promise of TM, which was tantamount to believing in some specific compensators that were highly susceptoble to disconfirmation. When initiations collapsed, the secular promise of TM died and thuse the specific compensators were disproved. [Introduciton of TM-Sidhi] This response to failure exactly confirms the compensator theory of religion. As immediate attainment of wroldly rewards proved impossible by scientific means, the promises of TM bevcame simultaenously grander and more supernatural. Disconfirmation of magical compensators opend the door to full development of TM's religious potential. Finally, the hard core of meditation teachers formed an inwrd looking religious movement, investing the bulk of its energies in the personal spiritual development of its relatively small band of dedicated members.
    • p. 191
The text here used to read:
  • After new meditator recruitment collapsed, the movement increasingly emphasized unusual supernatural compensators, and tensions within the movement increased rather than membership, because most dedicated movement members were TM teachers, whose financial and social status depended on a flow of new students, which had stopped. During this period, the Movement began making increasingly outlandish claims about the powers of TM, including the reduction of crime by the practice of "Yogic flying".
The text as it now reads:
  • According to Bainbridge, after the growth of new people learning TM stalled, the movement increasingly emphasized unusual supernatural compensators. During this period, the Movement began making increasing claims about the powers of TM and the TM-Sidhi program, including the reduction of crime by the practice of "Yogic flying".
I think the new summary omits the material on the views of the TM teachers.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The citation had said p 188. TimidGuy (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bainbridge isn't referring to tensions within the movement in the sense we might think. He's using "tension" in a specially defined, sociological sense regarding the relationship of a sect's relationship to society, etc. Roughly, groups which place greater demands on members have higher tension than those which have few requirements. Groups in the high tension category tend to make greater use of compensators, which do things like offset a lack of worldly status with promises of special status in the afterlife. It's a complicated concept and it'd be tricky to try to explain it fully in the text. I'll have to re-read the book to get reacquainted with the concept. In the meantime I'm going to modify the text slightly to try to make it a bit more accurate without getting pedantic.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes in format

[edit]

I've been looking at this article and feel that it is organized in a way that is confusing and unfriendly to the reader, as history should be told chronologically, not in subtopics arbitrarily created by editors. For example, MMY developed TM and founded the TMM and the lead confirms this by beginning with the Maharishi and his development of TM and its organization. However, when the reader gets to the body of the article they are met with several paragraphs of scholarly characterizations given in 1984 labeled as an 'overview'. That is wrong. The overview is the lead which summarizes the article. I recommend that the Overview section, be renamed 'Characterizations' and be moved to the bottom of the article, thereby giving the reader immediate access to the actual History of TM. I also recommend that the section called Origins be incorporated into the 1950's and 1960's section and include the Maharishi's statements about where he derived TM. Comments, suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections I am going to go ahead and make these changes. Any comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Overview section to the bottom of the article and renamed it Characterizations. I think the Origins section should be merged into the timeline of the article since these assertions are based on the Maharishi's writings in the 1950's and 1960's, there is no reason for a special section. However, I will wait on this discussion or action since there are ongoing discussion below about the sources and content in that section. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
I'm working on the TM movement article. Its history section links here. Because this lead doesn't even begin to summarize what's in this article its next to impossible to source the section which I had moved to TM movement. As soon as we do clean up this lead I could add or replace what we have now in the TM movement article in the history section. Am I making sense.(olive (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you explain further and mention the names of each article each time you switch back and forth? Thanks.I've created a new section for this discussion since it seems to be in reference to the History of TM article lead and is unrelated to the discussion above which is in reference to the organization of the sections of the body of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS if you want to see a copy of the History of TM lead that has citations, you can view one here in the main TM article. I hope that is helpful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Source

[edit]

Content that currently appears in the Origin section:

  • According to religious scholar and relational evangelist Kenneth Boa, in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, the Transcendental Meditation technique is rooted in the "Vedantic Hinduism", and that view is "repeatedly confirmed" by the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th Century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.

The source says:

  • "It [TM] is rooted in the Vedantic school of Hinduism, a fact repeatedly confirmed in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's own writings including Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita and The Science of Being and Art of Living"......"In his writings, Maharishi makes it clear that TM was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. This meditation technique was lost but briefly restored by Buddha. Then it was lost again until the ninth century A.D., when it was rediscovered by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. It was revived for the third time by Guru Dev and passed on to Maharishi."[6]

But I'm unsure about the source because:

  • This single source is responsible for 50% of the content in the Origins section
  • Kenneth Boa is Christian author who writes extensively and exclusively on the Bible, prayer and other Christian topics and is described on Amazon.com as: "president of Reflections Ministries and of Trinity House Publishers. Ken holds a B.S. from Case Institute of Technology, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, a Ph.D. from New York University, and a D.Phil. from the University of Oxford in England. He is the author of over 50 books, including Conformed to His Image, An Unchanging Faith in a Changing World, and Faith Has Its Reasons."
  • At the end of the chapter on TM, the source summarizes the points made in the chapter in a section called Biblical Evaluation and the author (Boa) quotes from the Bible at the end of each paragraph.[7]

Do we want to use a Christian evangelical source for this information when there are other scholarly sources (Chryssides, Bromely, Russell, Douglas) already cited in the section that give similar information? The use of Christian sources with narrow points of view on TM articles has been discussed previously at WP:RSN both here and here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed the ref list. Is that deliberate? I'd like to readd it, and I will be able to comment later today. Family stuff to take care of.(olive (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Good question. There were two citations for Boa (the source in question). One citation consisted of an editorial note and not a real citation (if you look at it, you'll see what I mean) and should be removed from the article. The other citation contained a URL that led to a web page that provided no access to the book's contents.  So I removed the phony citation and replaced the 2nd citation with a link that gives full disclosure and allows editors to see the actual page that is being cited. So what I've done is to provide more info and easier access for editors, like your self, who are reading this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boa is an academic which is a first step to establishing reliability. However, the imprint for this book is Cook which seems to be narrow and Christian in nature. We do use sources which add critical information on how TM is viewed by those form different religious backgrounds, but I can't see that those sources are RS for content that seems to be in Wikipedia's voice. In this case I think it might be fine to have content using Boa as a view opinion from the Christian Evangelical position, while inline citing him and his background, but other sources may be more reliable for the more factual kind of information on the origins of Transcendental Meditation.(olive (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I recently saw this question at the reliable source notice board. I looked over the earlier discussion on the topic of using religious publications as sources of factual information. The consensus of the earlier discussion seems to be that a publication about a religion should only be used as a source about the religion, not as a source of factual information. Another editor, commenting at the more recent RSN post, agreed with this principle but mentioned that a scholarly religious publication might be a source for scholarly issues. I looked at the excerpts from Boa's book that were provided. It does appear that the goal of the book is the promotion of Christianity and the tone is more persuasive than scholarly. However, I was not able to view the bibliography. Maybe that would provide some insights into the author's research and sourcing.Coaster92 (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coaster92, thanks for stopping by your input is much appreciated. I think you've given a good summary of the RSN. Not sure what to say about the bibliography. Sometimes books can also be viewed on Amazon's "look inside" feature but not on this one. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an added note: There are sources and text in several articles which pinpoint the beginnings of the TM movement and the first teaching of the TM technique to the 195Os , so Boa's statement which places the technique arrival 5,000 years ago is an absurd claim and using it can only be confusing given the 195Os date we are using on multiple articles. I'd suggest removing it with out delay ,and I'd suggest using Boa if at all for his Christian view rather than as a definitive voice for describing the technique and its history. Clearly per the majority of sources he has made at least one gross error in his calculations and material.(olive (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I have moved the Origin section and combined it with the other Characterizations of the History of TM in the Characterizations section. I will amend the text regarding Boa to reflect the consensus here and at RSN here and here. Further discussion and input on developing that section and the article is welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parking for un-cited text

[edit]

The text below has been removed from the article per TM ArbCom after having been tagged as unsourced for several months. If anyone can find sources the text can be re-added.

  • The Maharishi's efforts to achieve mainstream acceptance of his techniques as science and to establish Transcendental Meditation through public schools, prisons and the workplace with government funding were severely impacted by the decision of the US court in 1977 declaring the movement to be religious, and the teaching of TM in the New Jersey schools in breach of the First Amendment separation of church and state.--Citation needed|date=May 2010
  • In the 1970s, Maharishi began TM’s shift from religious to scientific. The plan was to build a TM teaching center for every one million people and to improve the lives of the people of the world. Maharishi trained 2,000 teachers to help launch his plan. He carried out the plan by building 2,000 World Plan centers around the world and creating multiple organizations. --Citation needed|date=May 2010-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit and organize lead

[edit]

I have done a major copy edit on the lead. I don't want to minimize the good faith efforts of those that have worked on the lead previously but.... it was very poorly written in terms of readability and sentence structure. I have re-written it and tried to avoid adding or subtracting any of the information contained therein. Please take a look and let me know if I have failed and if it needs further tweaking please make the changes you see fit. Thanks for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)  [reply]

Missing citations

[edit]

I noticed that the 1970's section has a number of "citation needed" tags. I am not sure what the protocol is, how long the tags stay and the unreferenced text stays. Maybe someone has some insight on this.Coaster92 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coaster, you may not be aware that this topic area has been the subject of arbitration. The Arbitration Commmittee's decision included this point about unsourced text. I hope its helpful. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best first step is to make an intensive search for a source.(olive (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, of course, that goes with out saying. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olive, purveyor of the obvious.:O)(olive (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

But its good you said it :-) I've cited the Merv Griffin Show and Multi-national corp sentences. However, some text I've moved here to talk (see below). If sources can be found it can be put in the MMY article or in TMM article depending on what the source says. Sources I've seen say that the Maharishi had no legal or financial ties with the WPEC which was the TM corporation during the 70s. Sources: (Braverman, Marcy (Jan 1, 1999) Transcendental Meditation, Contemporary American Religion) and (Meyer, EugeneL. (Sept 22, 1975) TM Takes on Corporate Look in U.S., Washington Post, page A1) And nothing in the Beatles section of MMY's bio except this:

  • In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement "really took off" when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles".van den Berg, Stephanie (February 5, 2008). "Beatles Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Dies". The Sydney Morning Herald. AFP. Archived from the original on August 30, 2010.

Contet below was removed from the History of TM article:

Thanks so much for these clarifications, Olive and KB. Are there more specifics about how long is a reasonable time? Also, I don't think I saw a date associated with the "citation needed" tags so how would an editor determine when the time starts?Coaster92 (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click EDIT you can see the date that the citation needed tag was place, like on the sentences above that I removed were cite tagged in Sept 2012. I usually wait a few weeks, sometimes longer, before removing and even then I usually move the text to the talk page which gives editors additional notification and opportunities to find sources and place the material back into the article. But everyone has to use their own judgement since it is not specified what a 'reasonable amount of time' is. If you see other cite needed tags and decide to look for sources, you will often find sources for the same material in other related articles. For example I found sources for the above text in the MMY article (Merv Griffin) and TM movement article (multi national corp). Another good tip is to hit Control F on your keyboard and it presents a search function that makes it easy to search any web page with a keyword. Hope that helps.... and thanks again for helping out on these articles its good to have a fresh pair of eyes on things.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Transcendental Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Transcendental Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Transcendental Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Transcendental Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Transcendental Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability of Nancy Cooke de Herrera's claim to have quoted Charles F. Lutes is Questionable

[edit]

How do we go about mentioning public figures, such as: Charles F. Lutes, ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transcendental_Meditation&type=revision&diff=843541920&oldid=843522199

... and fulfill the criteria of ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

... if there are no public citations to rely on?

If we cite them in a public article, such as occurs in the "History of TM" article by quoting Mr. Lutes from a book written from the perspective of "first person recollections" in the format of a "personal account" -- also known as: an auto-biography -- is questionable in its authenticity merely upon the basis of "no second opinion was cited to begin to qualify the book's accuracy" which, for all anyone knows, could be an art of fiction (referring to Nancy Cooke de Herrera's, "Beyond Gurus"). Why quote at all?

Sounds like the quote is a private matter with no public relevance due to its lack of verifiability.162.250.161.206 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW and FYI, as a regular visitor to Charlie's lectures, I want to publicly share a private memory in which Charlie did not allude to a failing economy of the Movement as Maharishi's primary concern, but that a failing interest in maintaining the twice daily practice of the TM technique, alone, was the reason for Maharishi seeking advice from the Shankaracharya of the north whose advise was: focus on improving the daily practice of the remaining meditators due to the waning interest to maintain the practice among all those who were already initiated (literally, millions, almost world-wide). One could misinterpret this as implying a concern for a drop of Movement income if the Movement was operating in a professional business manner similar to a corporation (what Maharishi avoided; it operates more similar to a bureaucracy: just ask any TM teacher). But Maharishi's primary concern was his belief that 5% of the world's population regularly devoting 15 to 20 minutes of twice a day practice of the TM technique, alone and without any other addition to the daily routine of the meditator, would be sufficient to reach his targeted goal for a noticeable improvement in world peace as cited by the press (reduction of crime, hospital occupancy, national and local suicide count, etc).

I can't argue that adding new curriculum to the Movement's portfolio would not improve the Movement's income stream. And I can't argue that a beauracy can't benefit from focusing on improving its income while ignoring its lack of smooth administration. But I beg to differ that these are the only possible reasons for adding the TM-sidhi program to the retinue of TM techniques. To infer a sole reason as the only or main reason cited from a non-reliable source and then avoid removing it from this article is poor encyclopedic journalism.162.250.161.206 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about the sum total of published knowledge. To determine whether we can trust a source we look at the publisher which in this case is reliable and the author probably also reliable for this kind of content. Then we can look at the content of the publication itself. I'm assuming there is content in the book about Lutes but at the moment I don't have this book to verify that. The TM articles where pretty thoroughly vetted years ago for reliability; they were contentious articles and many editors scoured them so I'm pretty sure this content is verifiable - that there is information about Lutes in the book- the source we are citing. However, unless we look at the book and look for the Lutes content we can't know for sure. The way we add content is to summarize what is in the source then reference the source we are citing. For example, lets' say we are writing a book on Mickey Mouse. We go to a reliably published book on the Mouse reliable for this content, and find that MM wore red shoes. In the article on Mickey Mouse we might have a section on clothing. We can add the red shoes content and source it to the book we've just looked at, and that's it. I know this is a silly example, but wanted to simplify.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Citing a single source is scanty for "the sum total of published knowledge.162.250.161.206 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pg 432 ch 30 -- Beyond Gurus by Nancy Cooke de Herrera.jpg
What did Charlie say about the TM Movement's beginning to teach some of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, aka the siddhis/sidhis, to its meditators back in the 1970s according to the unverifiable source of Nancy Cooke de Herrera?
File:Pg 433 ch 30 -- Beyond Gurus by Nancy Cooke de Herrera.jpg
What did Charlie say about the TM Movement's beginning to teach some of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, aka the siddhis/sidhis, to its meditators back in the 1970s according to the unverifiable source of Nancy Cooke de Herrera?
I have before me pages 432 paragraphs 5-10 and page 433 paragraph 1 contained within chapter 30, entitled: "Without the Magic Carpet". It is immediately preceded by the prior two pages which describe the Merv Griffin show with Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds. At the termination of that taping, Maharishi personally, not publicly, invited Nancy to attend a TM-sidhi course in Switzerland the following January. But shortly after the taping of that broadcast, Maharishi publicly announced his intention to teach levitation to meditators to which Mr. Lutes privately commented to Nancy...
Then came the news about Maharishi teaching levitation.
Originally, I agreed with Charlie about the publicity which greeted the Siddhi Course and the flying classes. "Just when he gets respectable, he comes out with something like this. The press will eat him up." The Lutes and I were at Casa Escobar, eating Mexican food and having our monthly catch-up on the news. This we had done for years.
"Why do you suppose he's done this, Charlie?"
"They've got a huge overhead with all the real estate they own these days. They'd better do something to bring in more money. Our initiations are way down."
"Why is that?"
"People are fickle, and there are a lot of other gurus teaching here now. They needed to come up with something new."
None of us were convinced it was a smart move, but my skepticism weakened when pictures appeared in the newspapers, showing meditators up in the air while sitting in the lotus position. It was intriguing.Vinyasi (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can only put in an article what is in a verifiable reliable source, so personal experience is not Wikipedia compliant. Wikipedia is not concerned with the truth but of what is in the publications. That unfortunately can leave us with less than accurate information or content that is more opinion than fact but we have no choice. Unless what you are saying about Charlie Lutes and MMY is published we can't use it in an article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
We do have a choice: the choice to leave it out. Rumor, for lack of fact, is not progress. Everyone knows that hearsay does not stand up under scrutiny if we allow scrutiny at all.162.250.161.206 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any difference between the reliability of a book and the reliability of a website. Just because a book is not self-published doesn't make it a reliable source since, as you allude to, the publisher was never present along with the author to verify as a second witness to the verifiability of the author's account.162.250.161.206 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a problem with tell-all auto-biographies somehow becoming more reliable than a self-published webpage -- the above quotation from her book notwithstanding.162.250.161.206 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both book and website may be reliable per Wikipedia if they both have oversight. You are confusing truth and verifiability. As an encyclopedia we aren't concerned with truth. We are concerned with whether something can be sourced, and what makes that source reliable and so acceptable is the quality of the publisher and the publisher is responsible for the reliability of the author. A publication has oversight - this means the staff who put a book on the market. An encyclopedia is interested in accuracy and that accuracy, per our own standards, is based on the quality of a source. I'm not sure what web site you are discussing but personal websites do not have oversight or the kind of reputation publishers have for creating reliable publications. I understand your concerns but Wikipedia has its own set of guides which together are deemed to create the best articles.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)([reply]
Compartmentalization of agreement by consensus such that consensus need not be among everyone concerned, but only among those with a direct need to know? So, authors are answerable to their publishers, while Wikipedia articles are answerable to their sources which in this case happens to be a specific publisher -- not the author of any book published by that publisher? So, the publisher has oversight upon its author/s, yet may have overlooked the reliability of its author's source since no one challenged it? Not that I would bother to outside of this context, but is good to know the limits to truth as you allege is impossible to achieve?Vinyasi (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the publisher is taken to be the source, not the author. For all we know, the author may not even exist - let alone the author's informant! So, knowledge is indeed controlled by the media who in turn is not beholden to its original sources. Talk about the fabrication of knowledge! I can now better appreciate the distinction between "truth and verifiability". But this holds the key to an hierarchical society not ruled by the thirst for knowledge, but for obedience to authority wherein consensus plays no part except to agree to the source of consensual authority. So, if Nancy had self-published off her own computer's printer, then Wikipedia would have had to never include her quote in the first place? This is very subtle. This discourages self-sufficiency, self-motivation (since who can't be bribed into authoring just about anything if the publisher demands or taunts the author with enough money?), self-reliance, and self-determination: a lemming state of consciousness. Rugged individualism, the likes of which Pres. Teddy Roosevelt would have approved of, is in scant supply. Oh, well. If we should ever become extinct, then at least it's nice to know that we all went out together with "no one left behind".Vinyasi (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Transcendental_Meditation&oldid=1202021573"