Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

TM/SCI

I know Malnak vs. Yogi is a point of continued discussion, so I wanted to clarify a few points about these two different courses so that they can be understood for future discussions. Firstly TM is a meditation technique that is taught in 6-7 classes over the period of a week. SCI on the other hand is a theoretical 30 lesson course taught over a month(s) that does not include any instruction in meditation. I believe that at MUM the two course are combined and taught concurrently to incoming students, but I'm not sure of this. It is also my understanding that in the New Jersey school of the 70’s (Malanak v. Yogi) the two courses were also taught together. However, this was and is not the case for the millions of people who have learned TM and have never taken the SCI 30 lesson course at anytime. Students at public charter schools who are practicing TM as part of their daily 'quiet time' also do not take the SCI course. --Kbob (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to find reliable sources to back up your understandings on these points. It would appear to be correct that basic instruction in TM does not include the full SCI course as taught as MUM, or the SCI course and textbook that was used in the New Jersey schools. It should be relatively easy to find a reliable source to confirm that. But, other reliable sources state that basic instruction in TM always includes some instruction in the principles of SCI, and always includes the puja ceremony. (See, for example, the Price article I cited above) Unless there is some reliable source that supports the proposition that there is no instruction whatsoever in the principles of SCI as a part of basic TM instruction, or that mantras are given out without a puja ceremony, I don't know where this discussion about a distinction between TM and SCI can lead. It's not possible to be a little pregnant. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems Kbob is supplying background information for us rather than saying that any of these needs to be added. Not sure if that's how others read this. TM is never taught without the puja as far as I know. I don't think we need to advance that idea in anyway, and I don't think that's what Kbob was suggesting but he can correct me if I'm wrong. TM is not SCI. I actually don't think we need to t to prove that the two aren't interconnected. One is simply a technique, the other theoretical. I have never seen literature anywhere that suggests the two are in anyway interconnected. And the TM organization never suggests this. As a runner I can run easily without knowing anything about the underlying mechanics of running. A course in sports medicine and kineseology will help me understand running but isn't needed to run and conversely, I can study sports medicine and kineseology without running. There is no reason for us to interchange or connect the two. What we can say is that the TM organization says TM and SCI are two separate kinds of study/practice ... not sure of the wording... if there is some need to make this point(olive (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Fladriff, I was just providing general information for future discussions. I will look at your Price article and see if I can find some further references as you suggested. Good joke about being a little pregnant. :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

COI clarification

Thank you Kbob I think you make some good suggestions. I would like to clarify one suggestion as I understand it. Discussion on COI does not belong here on an article talk page, but should be on the COI Notice Board. Discussion here should be about the article and not the editors.

I want to make this clear to any editor who has concerns about my COI status. Conflict of Interest was never proven nor was POV editing. When I say I have never been blocked banned or warned that was a general comment about my editing practices which were what was under scrutiny. The COINB is not a tribunal but as I understand it a place of discussion for concerns for COI. I was not blocked or banned there, either. I was brought there by editors here whose behaviour towards me leaves me no reason to trust any of them in the least in terms of their agendas. In discussion on COINB, Will Beback suggested as a final point that I not edit the MUM article. I intend to take that suggestion simply out of respect, although I have not been on MUM faculty for two years. I will teach one class in the spring. (Not sure how that is a COI since I am just doing what University academics do). I will edit the TM articles as I have always done and as every other editor edits. If we as a group decide to establish certain editing guidelines for ourselves I will of course agree to that. As noted earlier at the point when Judyjoejoe added material to the article with no agreement and when Rracecarr refused discussion, the article is contentious and a general strategy was evolved over time for all editors coming here that included lots of discussion before making controversial edits. Kbob’s suggestion is excellent but hardly new. I do not have a history of edit warring or any other history that is disruptive. If I am harassed any more I will take this further. I rest my entire reputation as an editor here on my editing history and am not afraid to have it scrutinized at the top level of Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

This is not to say I haven't done some edit warring in my time, but its not extensive nor is it the way I generally deal with disagreements ... to clarify my above statement.(olive (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Well clarified The7thdr (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, so if there is further discussion on this we'll do it on the Notice Board.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

There are so many threads ongoing here and multiple discussions. I'd like to nail down any agreements we come to here so we can all clearly see them, and to do that as separate discussion points.We seem to have reached a consensus on one point of discussion, and should act on it so we can at least begin to deal with something else and make some progress. If we don't do this and continue to argue every point even after consensus has been reached then the next step is to go to RfC and possibly mediation. We can't do that for every single point we discuss. So I would suggest that where there is obvious agreement we make the change and get on with the tougher discussion points.(olive (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes good idea. Let's have sections for each small item so we can make some progress. :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "religious" in teaching section

We have a four to one consensus to remove religious from the the teaching section. With respect to the dissenter the word should be removed.

Since no one has commented here, I'll give this one more day and then remove the words. Any changes in opinions should be noted here.(olive (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you have 3 to one and two that have not commented. The three dissenters are all "zealous" TMers. Answer my question as to how this is contentious. Do not ignore my arguemnt, as keeps happening, by pretending that what is being discussed here is whether "TM" is religious. This is not what is being said. The7thdr (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So, answer my comments in the relevant section - please add this yet another "new" section back to that section. Also, do not remove anything - until it is discussed. Three TMers saying "take it out" without discussion is not agreement. The7thdr (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a copy of Fladrif's comments giving his support, to not characterize the ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedure section. --[I'm going to shock User:Littleolive oil and at least partially agree with her. At that particular point in the article, whether the ceremony is or isn't "religious" is out of place, and I'm inclined to think that the better practice is to avoid the characterization at that point. That the court found it to be a religious practice, and the commentary of other reliable sources that the ceremony is religious, together with the opposing claim of the TM trademark holders that it isn't, belongs in the later section on the relationship of TM to religion. That said, I can't agree with her analysis that characterizing the decision as a finding that the puja ceremony was religious is an extrapolation or original research. Nor can I agree with her approach in continuing to edit this article in the manner she insists on editing, which seems directly contrary to the recent directives to her WP:COIN. Is User:Will Beback or some other Administrator going to have to continually moderate these articles to enforce the decisions there? Fladrif (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)] end quote. --Kbob (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 7th , It appears we have a consensus as 4 editors (Fladrif, Kbob, Olive, Uncreated) agree that the characterization of the ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedures section is not appropriate and therefore we would like to remove the Bainbridge quote. This decision does not have any bearing on the Religion and Sprituality section as it currently stands. That is a separate discussion. As a courtesy to you and WillBeback we are bringing up the point here in a new section for clarity and transparency. Your point of view and editor comments are valued and respected, however, sometimes we have to move ahead with the majority. Does this make sense? Please give us your thoughts. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Fladrif made his comments I have advanced the discussion on this topic - at no time have LO, Uncreated, or yourself been able to answer my comments. Instead on each occasion they have been deflected and and then "lost". I shall try again: The7thdr (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob, sorry for my short reply, but I am involved in a number of articles at the moment - and also trying to have a life ;)

No, I have explained why :) It is well sourced, it is a religious ceremony. I agree that discussion as to whether TM is "stealth" Hinduism, Guru (ism?) or any other "isim" should be left in that section. But this is not what is being discussed here. What is being clarified is that the "initiation" ceremony to level one of "Maharishi Maheshism" or what ever name you which to give it, is a religious ceremony. This it is, without question

If you can find a "reliable" none TM source that clear states that a puja is NOT a religious ceremony, I would be happy to discuss it :). The7thdr (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And Olive, it is not "synthesis" by any editor, it comes from a number of reliable source, all referenced. I repeat, it does not discuss whether TM is an "ism" it points out that the initiation ceremony is a religious one —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ADD: Sorry, can't seem to get rid of the bold text and replace it with italics. If anyone could help. It looks a little "rude" at the moment :) By the way, i am not against removing it, but I would like a discussion regarding these points. Perhaps it is me but I am confused why this is an issue regarding the ceremony. But am open to explanations :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to refocus the discussion otherwise we will have a lot of difficulty making progress. One way of doing that especially as we approach a consensus is delineate the points that are contentious. That's what I've done here. What has been agreed on is that the word "religious" does not belong in the section on the Teaching Procedure. We discussed source initially and you 're right the source now is probably compliant.This is not the source I originally commented on. You've changed the source since then.

The concern is not about whether puja is religious or not. The concern is that this is not the place to make that comment/ addition. The place to do that is in the reception section. There are those who believe the puja to be religious and those who don't. We can't create a simple section on the teaching procedure if we start to add all of that material and it must be added to be neutral. None of our opinions count here . What counts is a majority. If Fladrif had not weighed in to remove the word religious I would have asked for further discussion. As it is I didn't make the change but gave everyone a chance to look at it and change their "view "if they had the inclination. We can discuss until the cows come home whether this is religious but in the end the issue has become whether this is the place . I'd like to deal with this small addition now so we can get to the more difficult discussions. 7th you have to realize that you made additions to a contentious article without agreement or discussion, you have to expect that those points are now up for discussion. 4 to one is a majority. 3 to 2 is not and we would continue the discussion. I include a quoyte from a recent although draft version of a leaflet put out by Inform a UK charity that is supported by the British Home office and Churches to give information on movements potentially religious. I can certainly paste the entire document here. It is awaiting final approval so is not yet online. The document notes the puja comes out of the Vedic tradition which as you know predates any organized religion and never calls either TM or the puja religious. This document is completely neutral. This is one source but this isn't the issue here as I said.(olive (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

To learn the meditation technique, students attend both group and individual training sessions and witness a formal Vedic ceremony of gratitude (called a puja). Students are given a mantra to use for silent meditation. They are told that their mantra is chosen for them specifically and for best results should never be revealed to anyone. After instruction, practitioners are advised to meditate every day for two 20 minute sessions, sitting with the eyes closed. Practice of this meditation technique does not require or necessarily imply any other beliefs or lifestyle changes.

To reiterate my comment above, I agree with olive on this one point at least - characterizing the puja ceremony as religious or not is something that doesn't belong in the Teaching Procedures section, it belongs in the later section on relationship to religion where both sides of the question are explored more fully. 7th, that's where your source and citation belongs, not here. And no, I'm definitely not one of thoese "zealous TMers".

Unrelated to that immediate question: Olive, I don't know of any source, reliable or otherwise, that would seriously argue that the Vedas are not religious texts or that they predate organized religion. I'm not going to go to the trouble of researching outside sources, and instead rely on the old standby of those too lazy or busy to do any research, and say "every schoolboy knows...", and the new standby of citing WIkipedia.Historical_Vedic_religion, Vedic_period, Vedas The Vedas are universally understood to be handbooks for the priesthood of the Vedic religion, prescribing the prayers to its 33 (by traditional count) gods and rituals of that religion. It is certainly true that they predate Hinduism, which considers them to be among its most sacred texts, but it does not predate organized religion - it is an organized religion. But, I am prepared to be corrected and enlightened. What reliable sources seriously contend that the Vedas are not the religious texts of an organized religion? Fladrif (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Many sources even Wikipedia note that the Vedic culture predates organized religion and that Hinduism came out of the Vedic tradition. Organized is the operative word. This is one of the issues with the puja. To say the puja is Hindu is probably incorrect. The tradition predates Hinduism and is the remains of this older form of what might be termed religion. The puja these days and as it is used in the TM organization is said to come out of the Vedic tradition but is used as a preparation for the teacher so that he/she remembers where the knowledge he is about to impart came from.... so there is a long list of masters/teachers mentioned. As I understand it, this helps the teacher stay with the exact teaching of the technique so that every student has the same teaching of the technique, and some creative TM teacher somewhere doesn't start adding his own stuff. If you are listing off generations of teachers who have taught before you you might be less likely to play around with adding bits yourself. I'm not debating whether its ok to add your own stuff, just that its not TM. So if one learns TM from a recertified TM teacher then you, and your uncle living in Africa are learning the same thing, exactly. This means that every TM meditation learned this way can be checked by any TM teacher anywhere. Its unlikely a student would know Sanskrit so wouldn't understand, and is only meant to be a witness to the puja itself rather than being and active participant. Its a preparation and reminder for the teacher to just do it the way its always been done. Anyway I guess that's off topic.

I guess I'm a sticker for detail here so my leaning when discussing puja would be to not say religious simply because for Westerners "religious" means modern, organized and possibly a Theistic religion, whereas where talking about the remains of something older than that. So using "religious" in this instance has connotations that aren't really accurate. It is not unlike a celebration of Christmas which has its basis in very ancient so-called religious practice that certainly predates Christianity. Christianity has "over laid" a belief system onto the old practices. Others without knowing it are celebrating something secular that comes out of an ancient series of customs but just enjoy the celebration without knowing or caring where the traditions themselves came from. If this were research paper we could describes the Vedic traditions and the gradual evolution of it, and describes how some pujas have become secular leaving behind the tradition they came out of. Its not though and doing so even in the interests of accuracy would be OR so the best we can do is show a fair representation of what is said or not said, and matching weight to the weight indicated by mainstream reliable sources.(olive (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

I understand you're not suggesting that this belongs in the article, and I understand the point you're trying to make that the TM puja isn't a Hindu puja, but from an earlier tradition. But, I'm befuddled when you say that even the Wikipedia articles on the Vedic Period say it predates "organized religion" and "organized is the operative word". The Wikipedia articles on this subject - and there are a lot of them - all seem to say exactly the opposite. The culture of Vedic Period involved an extremely well-organized religion, some elements of which were later incorporated into Hinduism and a number of other modern religions. Aren't the Vedas a record and codification of the gods, prayers and rituals of that religion? Doesn't it specify different prayers and different rituals to be performed by various kinds of priests having different ranks?. That seems like the very definition of "organized" to me. What am I missing here? Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict so I'll stuff this in here for ease of reading in sequence:

No you're not missing anything... Its semantics again... When I say organized, I refer to a term, and way our modern religions are organized and named as opposed to the more ancient religions which were probably more open ended...My understanding is that ancient religious traditions probably grew up and were based more on regions and the cultures which developed in those regions. In certain areas everybody would slaughter a goat , but in others maybe some other animal dependent on what lived in that climate. The modern religions are more tightly defined and organized based on internal ideas, philosophy and have moved into physical areas in which they were not developed perhaps more so than did these older religious traditions. The tightly defined organization of the modern religion is what would allow it to maintain its integrity even in a new cultural environment. Hinduism is interesting in that even though one of the first so-called organized religions it remarkably open ended and probably is more accurately described as a tradition. Despite its openness/looseness it has moved substantially from where it developed.

The problem I see is in transferring information from one culture to another because words and traditions are mis characterized. Its quite common in Asian/eastern culture to bow down to a leader/ teacher but we would never do that here even in most Churches. Even in modern day Japan one still uses a half bow as a sign of respect.... (perish the thought of my students bowing down to me...sheesh). I may be rambling, but I guess what I'm getting at is, our readers probably won't know that religious in terms of puja refers to something different than how religious is defined in the west, and more closely resembles the non-apparent religious undertones that have given rise to our modern day Christmas rather than Theistic religions as most Westerners know them. I think that may be one reason why priests, ministers, rabbis can do TM and sit in on a puja and not feel it intrudes in any way on their beliefs or traditions.Not sure how to deal with that. If I do toss around some term that do not seems to make sense, thank you for asking me to explain rather than assuming I am fudging on the answer somehow. I really appreciate you understanding and openness.(olive (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, thank you for reiterating your opinion that it is not appropriate to characterize TM or the puju ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedure section. You are a man (or woman) of great flexibility and integrity. Your other points are duly noted and will continue to be heard and discussed. --Kbob (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, thanks for your reply and for explaining your position and for your continued civility. As mentioned earlier the majority of the editors here have decided that the Teaching Procedure section is not the appropriate place to characterize TM or the puja ceremony as religious because it is contentious and complex and should be addressed in the Religion and Spirituality section instead. However, if possible, I would like you to feel comfortable with this action, even if you don't fully agree. So I made a search on Google for Sanskrit dictionaries and this is the way the Sanskrit word 'puja' is defined. Honor, worship, respect , Honor, worship, respect, reverence, veneration, homage to superiors or adoration of the gods Honor, worship, adoration, hospitable reception, , Ceremonial worship . As you can see the word puja in Sanskrit has multiple meanings, several of which are non-religious. Even the English word worship has different meanings when used in different contexts. A man might say that he worships his wife but he is not necessarily practicing religion. Likewise the TM puja ceremony is not intended as a religious ceremony but rather as a traditional method for showing reverence and respect for a tradition of great teachers. It is not and induction into a culture or tradation it is just a one time show of respect and reverence after which the person is instructed in the mental technique of TM. For us to characterize the puja ceremony as religious, particularly in the Teaching Procedure section would be showing bias to one particular definition of the word. So instead four editors have concluded that if these different definitions are to be mentioned it should be in the Religion and Spirituality section. I understand that you may possibly still disagree, but we cannot make any progress as an editing group if 100% consensus is required for any change. So once again I propose that we go ahead and make the change now. There is the possibility also that as a gentlemen, a scholar and a man of peace that you could actually make the revert yourself. Is it possible? --Kbob (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kbob. I didn't see this when I made the edit ... Not sure of it was here or I just didn't see it. I would have been happy to have 7th make the change.(olive (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive- what you did in the article a few moments ago is an example of where I do have a problem with your edits. We have been discussing here whether to remove the description of puja as "religious" from the Teaching Method section, leaving that controversy to the Relationship to Religion Section. I'm not going to claim that you jumped the gun on making that change, because I think that there is a consensus - with one highly vigorous dissent - to make the change. But that's not all you removed. I've restored it in the later section to preserve the information, and then cut the quote (which is something you and TimidGuy wanted in any event), because I think the moved footnote makes the quote redundant now. I am perfectly happy to debate the merits of where that footnote best belongs, and I am trying very hard to be empathetic to your apparent point of view that deleting the footnote was part and parcel of what we were discussing. But, I think that you have to admit in all candor, it is not something that was specifically discussed here on the Talk page, and that your edit summary gives no indication that you were making more extensive deletions than what was specifically discussed. Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. The edit summary states clearly I am reverting to the original text. This is the text prior to the addition by 7th that he made without consensus. I left out the info on fees 7th objected to thinking even though we could get into a discussion on that .... there was a long history behind that addition, I thought we could save a lot of time if I said nothing and left it out as 7th wanted. I didn't jump the gun so much as assumed the entire edit was included in the discssion on religious.I don't think we should hide information in footnotes for the most part.If its worth noting pout it in the article unless there's a lot of disagreement and that's the only way to include something. I'd like to say I'd be happy to put the footnote back in place but I wouldn't . It was put in without discussion and references the term religious which I thought we'd agree to remove in spirit as well as directly in the text . That said I understand your concern, so please put it put it back if necessary.(olive (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I agree with what you said:"Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus" I may have missed something, but at the time when Olive originally removed the word 'religous' I felt it was a bit abrupt. Maybe it was based on some prior consensus but I didn't see consensus and it had the effect that 7th then entered a controversial quote from Bainbridge which began a minor editing war. Anyway I don't want to go backwards and make a fuss about the past, but now looking forward I think that having this policy you suggested ie. we do not make changes on contentious items without clear consensus on the talk page is a very good one and helps all of us. Thanks for bringing it up. Have a great weekend! --Kbob (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there guys. I reverted one of several edits made by 7th that had been placed without consensus during the COI. I made one revert of a one word addition I felt was simple and could be reverted if there was a lot of concern about it. The source was problematic. Those edits were made when I was under pretty intense scrutiny and didn't have the time or energy to contest them, and no one else was around. I'm going to assume 7th didn't realize that. Note that Will Beback cautioned 7th to slow down. Thing is if you want to apply cautions you better do it across the board. We are dealing right now with edits entered by one editor without consensus, but everyone is attacking Olive. Sheesh give me a break. Interesting, and I am being blamed for an edit war. Anyone heard of AGF. In that light, I'd like to suggest the points below concerning 1RR.(olive (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

....course thinking about it Will wasn't thrilled with my edit either.(olive (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif: You are waisting your time. TM is a multi-billion dollar commercial venture. They have the resources and the time to wear you out. You must also remember that this is a religion, people like Olive - and yes I do suspect olive is more than one editor, but maybe wrong - believe that come the dawning of the New TM world they will be the new spiritual "rulers". Sound far-fetched? Read Geoff Gilpin, The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality, Tarcher-Penguin 2006, ISBN 1-58542-507-9. She thus has the very future of her Atman at stake in this. This is no different to Christian/Muslim fundamentalists and in many ways these people should be pitied I think. They do however, have one advantage over the other fundamentalists - they targeted students that would later go on to be academics in the late 60's early 70's. Your only options here - sadly and it has been done in the past - is to involove fundamentalist of different viewpoints (Christian and skeptical fundamentalists are the best)

It is a pity really, I am not actually "anti" TM - I just believe that TM is outrageously dishonest - especially in this article - in representing it self truthfully. It is however a "dying" movement so there maybe some desperation in this.

Olive, go and have a meditation for goodness sake and practice some of the teachings in the Gita or especially the Upanishads. Might I recommend Easwarans translation? It is genuinely much better than your founders. I am actually, re-reading it at the moment. Most enjoyable. Namaste

Ahhhh 7th. What astonishing comments to make to anyone. New spiritual rulers..... well, when I'm what would it be, the spiritual queen, I'll let you know. Sheesh. You really are over the line in WP:NPA. But 7th I'll say this. For you to spew out such comments I must have insulted you in some way and if that is so I apologize.(olive (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Not at all Olive, you are the one that keeps saying I am insulting you - so thought I would remove niceties and state facts. Nothing I have said however is a personal "attack". I state facts about your religion, these are realities not insults :). The7thdr (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ll always remember a dinner-table discussion about the upcoming presidential election

of 1976. A few were for Ford and a few were for Carter. One perky young woman

insisted that nobody in the TM movement should waste their time voting. Any day now,

the Age of Enlightenment would dawn and America would adopt a caste system with

Maharishi and his followers as the new lords and ladies.

I confronted her with a lame protest about Abraham Lincoln going from his log cabin to

the White House. She seemed genuinely baffled by this argument. “But,” she asked in a

concerned tone, “don’t you want to be known as Lord Geoff?”

At first I was as baffled as she was, but I got used to it. A surprising number of

Maharishi’s followers assumed that their service to the movement would be rewarded by

a mansion with a staff of servants, a position of leadership in the coming world

government, and the gratitude of all humanity.Geoff Gilpin: Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Miracles, Quantum Failure

The7thdr (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

7th. you can cite some author any way you want but this doesn't mean his statement is true. I have never met anyone who thinks this way, ever. To extrapolate a statement like this and lay it on an editor here is a long jump in reasoning. Truth and source verifiability need to be delineated. They aren't the same in editing and they aren't the same in life.(olive (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

And You might note that the suggestion for the 1RR was in part to, protect against edit wars where one side could "out war" the other since I knew that was a concern, but hey, read it as you will.(olive (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Uncreated, while I can actually feel you straining your intellectual muscles on this one, this might not be the best article for you - except for when Olive needs the additional "vote" in an attempt to prove consensus of course. Perhaps you might want to look at other articles. Namaste

Kbob, I really hope you are as genuine as you sound on occasion - I oddly like you and feel that article would be better with your editing style - even if you are "pro" TM. Some such editors are need for balance :) namaste

Olive, it is thus presently 2 editors to three. As the three are obviously highly pro TM - this does not make consensus without discussion. Note, you started the edit war. You claimed that the reference for religious was not valid - stating it was a website. It was not as can be clearly seen in the edit history, it was the USA court case stating the PUJA was religious. Your reasons for reverting was incorrect, even more so when more references were added that supported this notion, per your request. The7thdr (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

However, happy to go with this if fladrif is in agreement, but feel if that is the case we need get on with explaining how the mantras are assigned - based on the persons age. We have a reliable, compliant reference for this after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ospina/Bond Study

This addition was controversial. Maybe if there are objections to the study, they can be noted here, otherwise we can just leave the study in place.(olive (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Now that there is some rewording, I'm fine with this entry and feel it can stay.(olive (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Because this is a medical claim - we need to mention who funded the ^ James W. Anderson1, Chunxu Liu and Richard J. Kryscio, "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis," study.The7thdr (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The study clearly states there was no conflict of interest so we can't assume one. Remember we're just citing sources.(olive (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Kentucky Meta analysis

This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation

and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle. Mr Settle had no input on any aspect of the study and received a draft copy as a courtesy but had no input on the content of this manuscript. J.W.A. has no other connections to groups related to Transcendental Meditation and declares no other financial

interests or conflicts related to the subject of this manuscript.

(olive (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

I guess I would read this as saying there was no conflict despite Settle's funding.I don't like to clog up the article with all kinds of claims and disclaimers on who did what and why...Such additions seem to me to be trying to make some kind of point, and that creates a subtle POV. However we can see what everyone else thinks and go with that. Didn't see this post of 7th's earlier (olive (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

In which case citing who funded - it should not be problematic :) The7thdr (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1RR suggestion

I'd like to suggest we as a group uphold a 1RR policy with the following stipulations. Example: My recent reversion of a part of the Procedure on the word "religious" was in my mind part of the addition 7th made and which we discussed and so should be removed. (I realize not everyone saw it that way.) It referred to "religious" and didn't seem to have to make sense in the section once the Bainbridge quote was removed. Leaving it there was a kind of hidden piece of information. With a 1RR rule Fladrif would have come in and reverted the change. I would have left the revert in place and taken this to discussion if I was concerned about Fladrif's revert. I would also suggest that the editor placing the info and the editor reverting be the only ones to engage in each particular sequences of reversion. So for example, if Fladrif made and edit which I removed Kbob wouldn't come in and revert me.

What this means:

• Effectively all edits in place right now could remain in place until agreement is reached to change it. If 7th didn't like something in the article he could remove it. If Fladrif thought the addition wasn't good he could replace it. This now goes to discussion and needs a consensus to be changed.
• The advantage is that small noncontroversial edits can be made without discussion. Well any edits can be made and if no one touches the edit then easy consensus is reached.
• This also ensures that edit wars would not happen....And fairness would be more prevalent. For example if 3 people like an edit but 4 didn't, the four would win out in an edit war. This way one edit, one revert and then it goes to discussion.
• If its obvious to all concerned that an edit will be highly controversial then discussion might come first, but still an editor has the right to make the change ... we all AGF and revert or leave it as each feels is right. So no one gets attacked for making that first edit
• As a group we would have to enforce verbally this rule for anyone coming onto the article . So if some new editor adds something Uncreated doesn't like and Uncreated then reverts, but then the new editor tries to revert back we as a group have to ask him to back off and take the edit to discussion even if we agreed with that new editor.
• This requires highly collaborative editing, but I think we are capable of doing this. Everyone here has shown they can be reasonable.
• Actually I think it would be great to try this to see if we can collaborate at this level.

To summarize. On revert per customer. Two customers per edit. Each edit, one revert series only. New customers play by the rules of the pool or deal with all of us.

But just an idea... not attached.(olive (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, just keep to wiki guidelines. And I know that the humanities is your area of academia, but don't you humanities teachers ever study the meaning of "concise ;) Thanks The7thdr (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1RR has been used on other contentious articles, and some editors adopt a 1RR rule on their own. So there are precedents for something like this on Wikipedia. Thanks for your reply. You sound like just a scientist,7th. (olive (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Your second point, might be olive, might be :) The7thdr (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive - this is total BS. And, so are your most recent edits and your comments above in the prior section. If you had any intellectual integrity whatsoever - and your actions of the past couple of days confirm that you don't, so I know I'm wasting my time - you would concur. Here's what I propose:

1. You acknowledge that you have a direct conflict of interest on all TM-related articles. You've admitted that you are a paid employee of MUM. We both know that that isn't the half of your financial interest in, and dependency on, the TM Organization and MUM. I'm not going to say one more word on this lest I cross the line of WP:Outing. But, you know what I'm talking about.

2. You limit yourself strictly to the COI guidelines at Wikipedia.

3. That means for you, especially since you have repeatedly demonstrated beyone a shadow of doubt that you are utterly incapable of confining your edits to those guidelines: Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch, None - No reverts whatsoever by you, other than for clear and unequivocal vandalism.

I'm taking this up again with WillBeBack and the COI Noticeboard, because you are clearly incapable of understanding plain English or conforming your behavior to the standard expected at Wikipedia.

Go ahead and piss and moan to your and TimidGuy's favorite Admin about how I'm personally attacking you. Fladrif (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Fladrif...The 1RR suggestion comes out of discussions I have heard watched over time on Wikipedia concerning ways to deal with contentious articles. The way I suggest it if you read it carefully was first of all a suggestion to make things move more quickly and if you look at how it works it gives you and 7th an advantage over the other editors.If all other editors edit war against you you can't win, but with this no edit wars at all. It means that all of the stuff 7th put in without discussion will effectively stay in unless more discussion and agreement ensues . It means I can't remove something and ask other editors to back me up in an edit war. For god's sake Fladrif it was a move to help you out and to show good faith to make this easier ... and finally it was a suggestion Faldrif .... If you don't like it say so.

Fadrif let me make this clear. I have not and do not edit with a conflict of interest edits. I do not have to tell you or anyone anything, and I have never admitted to conflict of interest editing. That's your game apparently. And I will say again, I will allow my work and edits to be scrutinized at the highest level of Wikipedia.

You don't not have the right to limit my editing.I have not been banned or blocked.

But you know you may be successful in your agenda because obviously its an agenda. I have to think seriously about continuing to edit on an article where the editors think its accetptable to treat other human beings as you and 7th have done me. I have to think about it seriously. And by the way TimidGuy has retired and will not be back apparently so you can level your foul attacks on me and leave him out of it.(olive (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

• Two points: 1RR reduces edit wars but doesn't help achieve talk page consensus. I'd suggest mediation would be a better form of general dispute resolution. Or, if it's a dispute over a discrete topic then a RFC, which solicits outside input, may work so long as folks are willing to listen. As for the COI issue, this isn't the place to discuss it. Article talk pages are for discussing articles, not editors. The WP:COIN or a user talk page would be the best places for discussing COIs. My advice to editors here is for everyone to edit as if they have a conflict of interest, and avoid making edits that promote or denigrate any particular POV. This topic has many reliable sources that contain a full range of POVs. Each significant POV should be presented neutrally in its most relevant location. "Writing for the enemy" is a good way of achieving NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC

I was very aware that in an edit war 7th and Fladrif thought they could be outnumbered. 7th, I think it was, said so at one point. This suggestion was meant to completely get rid of the possibility of edit warring, and that concern. It in no way protected me. On the contrary. I thought pretty seriously about losing any kind of editing options to people who seem to hate me. But i felt that if the editing environment was improved it might be worth it. It could also provide a more collaborative situation. Most importantly it was a suggestion. If anyone saw any use in it fine if not just an attempt to make things easier on everyone. I also noted earlier that its tough to do a mediation and/ or RFC on every contentious point. Discussion here is not civil and that isn't easy to deal with. I am at a loss. At this point its hard to see any sense in trying to deal with the situation here. Incivility is wearing, beyond wearing. Thanks. I think you comment is measured, even, and fair.(olive (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, I believe that no one "hates you". This is not the issue, it is purely to do with the manner in which you have attempted to "control" this article. This not a personal matter at all. If some people seem a little "frustrated" with you, it is not you but the decisions you make and your comments. See below for example. Here you removed something that I added, which was added with the evidence you stated needed to be in place for it's addition. This you then just removed again. I did not edit war and returned it, but joined in the discussion. I than went with the general concise and the offending item was moved to the section that everyone said it should be, And then? You removed it again!. One has to admit this is a little frustrating. As to "my" agenda. That agenda is to reflect the truth of the facts in this article based on correct reliable sources. At present that is not the case due to the selectivity of the evidence presented.

Well said. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish both of you ....Your incivilities are beyond the pale and they are very personal. I have made two reverts in the last few days . One I thought was within the spirit of the discussion. I advised you to return it if I was out of line. The second I apologized for because I had thought I had explained clearly my position when I probably hadn't and so I personally consider that revert a mistake. I apologized ... but apparently that's no good here.... you both twist what I say and do and continue to attack me personally. You both have some imagined view of who I am and what I believe in and think that this imagined view gives you a right to treat me in fashion that is outrageous and abusive. This is the give and take of discussion but every move I make is cast in the light of your POV of me. If you for a second could get past your agendas you might see an editor who is trying to get along despite abuse and trying to move the article in a way that is fair to both sides. Maybe the issue is about control .... I have a right to work on this article as do you. I have a right to try and focus a discussion . I don't have the time to deal with endless discussion once a consensus is reached. Its a waste of all of our times in my opinion. I have a right to question the sources. I have a right to make suggestions as do you both. The 1RR rule has been useful on other articles. I thought it might help us here. You could have just said ... no this doesn't work for me ... but you had to use that as a point of attack ... again....Wikipedia is about the sources. Its a collecting place for knowledge, and is not about truth. Relative truth is personal and is not an absolute. There is no truth about TM as far as Wikipedia goes there are only the sources. Those though sources have to balanced in terms of what is seen in the mainstream literature and media. This article can't be about attempting to right some perceived wrongs in the article. You may think its a mess, others may not. That's an agenda. Just deal with what we have in front of us. From my side if the article is not FA status it could use a lot of work .... why is that so hard to understand or believe. I'm done discussing any of this from here on in .... Its the article or nothing(olive (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

For you to revert reliably-sourced materials without discussion, and then when it is reinserted at precisely the the point in the article where you yourself agreed it ought to be to revert it again, and then have the brass balls to come here and propose that everyone agree to not revert your reverts, and then to feign offense when this hypocracy is called out takes something. I'm not going to accuse you of bad faith, because I can think of other alternative explanations for your behavior - though those alternatives are potentially less charitable or flattering. So, when you say "I have not and do not edit with a conflict of interest edits", I have to assume that this is one more of those semantic games like "Carter Phillips isn't counsel to TM", "Hinduism is a tradition not a religion" and "Vedic religion isn't a real religion, because it's not organized" "ok it was organized but let's change the subject", etc., etc., etc. Yes you do have a conflict of interest on this very article, and you repeatedly edit it an a manner which directly violates COI editing policies. You can insist that 1+1=3 all day and all night long if you want, and I suppose that most people will eventually decide that it's pointless to keep telling you that 1+1=2, but 1+1 will never add up to 3, no matter how persistent you are in being wrong. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right whatsoever to revert reliably-sourced material from any article, even ones where you don't have a COI. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive: "you both twist what I say and do and continue to attack me personally. " No Olive, and I need to repeat this, we do not attack YOU Olive, we criticize the manner in which you attempt to lead the article in a manner which removes anything that the TM movement is uncomfortable with: Religion, Court cases, poor research, research funded by the TM movement, the nature of the mantras, criticism from former TM teachers, etc, etc. You attempt to do this declaring NPOV but many editors can see that this is manipulation of NPOV. You see this as personal because you are so tightly connected to your religion - this is the nature of deep religious devotion. Indeed, it is not only religious devotion but any form of fundamentalism, including conspiracy theory and even fundamentalist atheism . This does not, and I will repeat this, reflect well on the intellectual clarity - or perhaps even honestly - of MUM faulty members and for me, causes me to examine even more closely any research funded or arising from that institution.

In my five years with the Movement, I’d seen the heights of devotion and the

depths of paranoia. I’d been through hope and despair and crazy superstitions and

grinding boredom without end. By then, it wasn’t much of a surprise to learn that my best

friend had a secret life as a bun-bouncing lunatic.

The thing that bugged me, as I stood in the shadows watching the happy faces go

up and down, was the knowledge that each one of them believed without question that he

was flying through the air under his own power like Superman. I knew these guys, and I

knew the Movement. If Maharishi said butt-bouncing on foam rubber was magic, a

miracle, a paranormal suspension of Newtonian physics, then it was. Period.

The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement that

Transformed American Spirituality. Copyright 2006 by Geoff Gilpin

Just to clarify, this occurred at MUM The7thdr (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read 7th.(olive (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Or see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k357ErdUQyk The7thdr (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An audience member says, "So what is it TM wants?" TM's Raja of Germany replies, "An invincible Germany". The audience member replies, "That is what Hitler wanted" The Raja of Germany" - one of TMs most enlightened members - responds, "Yes, but unfortunately Hitler was not successful" The7thdr (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Procedure section

There was no agreement to move this somewhere else in the article. Discussion necessary.(olive (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm happy with it being moved. The7thdr (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It either belongs there or in procedures. I think it should be in procedures, everyone else thinks otherwise. The agreement above - ad nauseum - is that it belongs in the religion section. You Olive argued this repeatedly. Removing it now claiming it was not discussed does not reflect the academic department of MUM in a very good light, in my opinion. The7thdr (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right actually in one sense. My comment to move this somewhere and that the religion section was the appropriate place if it had to be somewhere was meant to be "with discussion". However I can see that wasn't the meaning others probably got, and I probably didn't clarify that in any way. The reception section is going to need some scrutiny so it can all be discussed then. Apology for the edit....(olive (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Actually double apology for the edit.Must be really tired.(olive (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with MUM 7th...good grief.(olive (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, let's take our time and discuss this. Its always easier to just make changes on our own but it doesn't move anything forward in a productive way as things just get reversed. Let's take our time and work together on this. Thats the Wiki way. --Kbob (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's Work Together

I see a lot of emotion on this page right now but its not helping the article or ourselves as editors. 1) Conflict of Interest--COI issues belong on the notice page, not here. Those who are accusing other editors of COI need to follow up on the Notice Board or read the Wiki Guidelines or contact Will Beback to find out what more can be done. At present no editors here are under any restrictions. 2) Personal Attacks--The policy is simple: "comment on content not on the contributor". Wiki administrators can restrict or block editors who badger, harrass or make personal attacks on other editors. This page is getting out of hand and if the current atmosphere continues it may be necessary to take recourse to Wiki procedures and policies to restrict offensive editors. WP:NPA 3)Point of View--Wiki has guidelines to reduce POV. But still everyone has a point of view, everyone has a bias, everyone has an opinion. Welcome to planet earth. If we don't like opinions that are different than ours, and feel aggravated and stressed by it, than why are we on Wiki? Take a moment to ask yourself why you are here and if it might not be time to find a new hobby that brings you joy instead of more aggravation. So everyone please take a deep breath, this is not personal, its not a life or death struggle, its a just a dang article for heavens sake! :-) Let's get back to discussing each specific aspect of the article one by one and making changes as we reach consensus. Remember: "Comment on the content, not the contributor". Thanks for reading and thanks for listening. Let's work together! :-) Peace--Kbob (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kbob:

1 Once more you mention personal attacks - when none have occurred. Threatening editors with "if the current atmosphere continues it may be necessary to take recourse to Wiki procedures and policies to restrict offensive editors" is bad manners and does nothing to "enlighten" things

2 "no editors here are under any restrictions" The following is taken from a users talkpage, an instruction given by an admin and related to COI - I will not mention by name: "I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism."

The truth is that some of us have far better things to do than have to hang around the TM article, and addition, some of us are showing remarkable constraint. The7thdr (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good comments 7th. I feel that there are ongoing violations of WP:NPA so we differ on that topic, but thats OK. I wanted to alert everyone in advance to avoid problems, that was my purpose. I did not intend to threaten, so your criticsm is well taken. Regarding the restrictions on an editor here, if you feel that someone is restricted and is violating those restrictions than you should follow through with administration. To have it clearly resolved would benefit all of us on the page. Have a good rest. --Kbob (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Kbob. AS to your last comment, I say nothing regarding it because I would like to think it can be resolved without further incident. The quicker that is forgotten the better in my opinion. You will notice that this is actually the first time I have mentioned it here. I believe that everyone has a valuable contribution to make - as long as they "play fair" :). Namaste my friend The7thdr (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying.

I am about to add information about this and the TM-Sidhi (actually, I think this should be added back into this article to be honest and cannot understand why it is seperate at the moment, As the TM website says "Yogic Flying is a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation program, and accelerates the benefits. It is a specific and unique meditation procedure practiced after a TM session."

Anyway, before doing so - and without the usual 16 page discussion :) - does anyone have any ideas as to the best way of adding this? The7thdr (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th. There is an article on the TM-Sidhi program as you note, of which Yogic Flying is part. It was split off as were other aspects of the TM organization because this article was becoming too long and too complex .... This was not my decision but I do support and abide by it since there is now an extensive system set up to deal with the huge mass of material that makes up the TM organization. If you want to add plesaepleaseplease respect the work that has been done on this articles by multiple editors and discuss it here first. Many thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, as has already been noted the it was mainly one editor that made this decision TG - and the neutrality of that decision has already been questioned on many occasions. It is clear that Yogic flying is part of the TM technique and needs to be put back into this article - as does mention of the using Tm meditation to "bring world peace". This isn't really a discussion of whether it should be introduced but how - that is why I have raised it here first. Your impute in this would be valued of course

Other issues that seems to have "vanished" that need reinserting are, but I will list separately so as not to inundate in one section:

Issues of costs

Ex-TM teachers offering cheaper alternatives

The manner in which the mantra's are issued - by age, etc

Examples of the Mantras

Academic criticisms that most TM medical research is conducted by TMs or funded by part of the organization.

I shall attempt to address these over the next few weeks but any help from anyone would be appreciated. The7thdr (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

7th. I am surprised by the fact that you have come into this article and now without any discussion or respect for the other editors here are adding whatever you please. I will assume good faith and suggest that you are not doing this because I am under scrutiny right now on the COI notice board, and you think I won't revert you. You're right I won't revert you because I'm too busy tonight but when I have time I will deal with each and every edit its position and its weight and ask that you enter into discussion about concerns, I as another editor on this article have. You are not a one man editing team, this is a contentious article and editing practices here need to be collaborative as they have in the past. You might go into the archives and see how Ronz handled his concerns and questions. Thanks 7th.(olive (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

And no, actually Yogic flying is not part of the TM technique, but is a technique of its own, has its own article that includes criticism, and research, and was not created somehow by TG on his own. Material on Yogic Fling needs to be in that article or if that article is to be merged with this one a wider consensus than one editor's opinion is needed(olive (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I too will assume good faith olive but could I point out that "You are not a one man editing team" works both ways. Anything I have added is from reliable academic/ published sources and very relevant to the sections added. For goodness sake, Professor Hadden was always being criticized as being "pro" - and an appologist for - so called "New Age Religions and "Cults" - including TM. You should be well aware of that as a member of an organization that attempted, to get an "Accredited" university to remove material from it's website about your organization you did not like:

"Several TM members have written to the webmaster of the Religious Movements Homepage and expressed strong disapproval of the sociological perspective as well as the content of an earlier version of this page. When asked for assistance in checking the accuracy of the contents of the page, Mr. Hadden was advised to take the page down. Any treatment of TM as a religion, they argued, was tantamount to bigotry. http://web.archive.org/web/20060831081613/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html#25 "

I will always maintain good faith but will not be "bullied" by any corporate entity. The7thdr (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The web site you mention was created by students for a class.... It is in no way compliant and one would have to check any information. I'm not saying what you say isn't correct. I'm saying ...well if you've ever had students... and this was a sophomore level class.....not even an upper level class or graduate student class...(olive (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I won't be around the TM article for awhile have lots to take care of but will catch up with everything later.(olive (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi LO, I think you will find that the page was put together under the supervision of Jeffrey K. Hadden, who I know you were aware of. The site in general is listed in a number of academic and known academic published resources as a sound resource - it is also found on the facility website of an accredited - and independent - university. I would like to use this rather than a published, secondary resource where the same information is available but may be more difficult for the causal reader to find - such as the published works of professor James R. Lewis, for example. I also find material supervised or written by Professor Hadden, to be far less value laden than many others in this field. The Sociology of Religious Movements, is a recognized academic resource as I am sure you are aware. Again, I referenced it back to website because the resource was easily available there. However, I have now found that large parts of the work is available in Google Books previews and would have no difficulty referencing directly there if you would like? I would like the reader who does not have access to an academic library to be able to find the resources easily themselves. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eCKbw8QuhEkC&dq=Bainbridge,+William+S.,+1997.+The+Sociology+of+Religious+Movements.&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=mIGpSebjPNTIjAem8IzbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result The7thdr (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, I appreciate your contributions to this article but would have to agree with LO that since there is already an separate article on the TM-Sidhi program (Yogic Flying) it does not seem appropriate that we have duplicate info here. Especially since the TM Sidhi article was a spin off of this TM page. I also note that the TM Sidhi article was created in Nov 2006 and that quite a few different editors have worked on the article since that time (see discussion page) so I'm not sure why you feel that it was all done by Timid. You are right to say that the TM web site states that the TM-Sidhi technique is an 'extension of the TM technique', but it is only one of several Advanced Techniques and related programs that the family of Maharishi organizations offer. This is the reason why the TM-Sidhi page was created and it seems to me it would be best to maintain the integrity of both these pages as they are currently set up, don't you agree? --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob. I think you would be correct except, that it seems strange to me that an article about TM, contains no mention at all of the progression of said technique and where it leads to. It is the same that LO and TG have always maintained that any mention of the peace palaces and the use of TM to generate world peace should be included because this is part of the "yogic flying" "program" yet this is clearly incorrect as stated by the Maharishi himself who, according to TM stated: "...in 1960 that if just one percent of the world’s population practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique, there would be an end to war. In 1974, scientists noted a growing number of cities where one percent of the population had learned the Transcendental Meditation technique. They looked at crime statistics in these “one percent” cities, they found that when a city reached the one percent level there was a decrease in the crime rate. At the same time, matched control cities maintained an increase in crime rate—as did the United States as a whole. They named this phenomenon the Maharishi Effect." And yet mention of the Maharishi effect has always been excluded from this article as it is part of the Yogic Flying article. Yet here we clearly see that the Maharishi - and indeed the TM movement itself - makes no such distinction. Have a separate article if it is needed, but is clear to me that this needs to mentioned here. To exclude it simple leaves the reader without a full picture of the technique or what is considered it's potential "side-effects. I am sure that if I was doing something, i would like to know if it had a side effect of generating world peace - wouldn't you?  :-) The7thdr (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Maharishi effect refers to the fact that "research scientists named this phenomenon of rising coherence in the collective consciousness of the whole society the Maharishi Effect". So the definition defines an effect. Initially this effect was said to be observed with those practicing the TM technique. At that time the TM Sidhi program had not been instituted. The material we have advocating leaving in the TM Sidhi Program refers to research that was done later on the more advanced TM Sidhi Program. What we have are two different techniques creating a similar effect, and research referencing the second technique rather than the first, the TM technique. Therefore it would be misleading to put studies on the research of the TM Sidhi program into an article on the TM technique. References to the Maharishi Effect and the TM technique that are made in the literature are historical in nature. Research citing a Maharshi Effect is these days only done on the TM Sidhi program. Any research included would have to be checked to make sure which technique is being referred to and then that study placed in the appropriate article. Whether a reference is made to the TM technique and the Maharishi Effect as a historical reference is a different issue.(olive (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

And to clarify. Yogic flying as a technique was not being referenced in the first days of the Maharishi Effect as that program had not been created yet.(olive (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, not to sure what you are trying to say here to be honest. But right now your own website says:

"However, the effects of Transcendental Meditation are yet more far-reaching: the source of human intelligence is also the fountainhead of Nature’s intelligence – the Unified Field described by quantum physics – which underlies and governs everything in the universe. By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends.

"The scientifically documented benefits for the individual – Enlightenment – and for society – Invincibility!"

"Invincibility for society

* Improving the environment and creating world peace

TM seems to clearly state - and "prove" through research, that practicing TM will bring world peace and "invincibility". Now, this is certainly noteworthy and needs to be included here in some detail. As to the Yogic Flying itself, well, as there is presently a separate article then just a brief mention would make sense here :-) The7thdr (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a brief mention of the TM-Sidhi and Yogic Flying programs and a link to the other article if its in the context of other advanced programs of TM. Also, just to clarify LO's point. She was saying that only a small number of studies on the Maharishi Effect were conducted with subject's using the TM technique. If we could determine which studies, then we could consider referencing them in the TM article. But if the research was conducted with subjects practicing the Yogic Flying (which is one of the mental techniques included in the TM-Sidhi course) then it seems like that research would only be appropriate to mention on the TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying article.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi kobi - if we take official TM websites as conformation - which I think we would have to say are the final authority, then it seems TM - via the Maharishi Effect - can can bring world peace - which is nice: http://www.t-m.org.uk/benefits/index.shtml. http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/maharishi-effect/. As to research on just good old no flying TM, four TM websites refer readers to: Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation Programme—Collected Papers 98, 166, 317-320, 331, and 402. (cited: http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/maharishi-effect/

However, the more I study this the less convinced I am that TM as a "movement" considers TM and TM-sidhi programs as separate and I grow more convinced the two should be far more closely linked here in WIKI. But that is for later perhaps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey 7th, well here we are at our computers even on the weekend! Thanks for the research. You are correct, the two are often included in the same sentence on the TM web sites but it appears they are two taught in two completely different courses and practiced seperately. I think the TM-Sidhi course is several weeks long while the TM course is just one week. Also, one must take the TM course first and after mastering that for some time they take TM-Sidhi. Maybe Olive could confirm this or I could look on the official site for a reference. So I we agree they are related but they are different and each one has its own history, scientific research, course of instruction etc. In any case, do you have a sentence or two that you want to suggest for inclusion in the TM article? --Kbob (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found a reference. http://www.tm.org/sidhi/ You have to practice the TM for two months then take TM-Sidhi. The TM-Sidhi course has 14 sessions plus two weeks "in-residence".

I noticed that the words TM-Sidhi program are already mentioned (though not explained) in the Lawsuits section. So I went ahead and created a link to the TM-Sidhi article. --Kbob (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats very good Kbob. Thinking about it I think the following would be best:

A new section entitled "Advanced Techniques" or something similar, that VERY briefly mentioned that Basic TM" can be supplemented with The TM-Sidhi program and what ever (It would need one of you TM experts to describe if there is anything else in this section. This would be something like: "After 14 weeks TM training the pratctionor can go onto learn advanced Techniques under the TM-Sidhi program" Or something like that with a link. That way we could give the reader a far better overview :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll think about this too, where it might go and what it should say. Give me a day or two to come up with something. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have a proposal. First let me review…. We agree (I think) that the TM course and the TM-Sidhi course are two separate courses. They are separate mental techniques with separate course structures, timelines, course fees etc. For this reason there is a separate WIKI article for the TM-Sidhi technique. However, since the TM-Sidhis have also received a lot of publicity and is one of the primary 'advanced' programs of TM, it makes sense that it could be mentioned in the TM article with a link to the TM-Sidhi page. I suggest we put it in the Origin section like this: (new sentence in brackets)

In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. [Then in 1975, Maharishi began teaching an advanced mental technique called TM-Sidhi and which included a technique for the development of something he termed Yogic Flying.] In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.--What say ye, Olive and 7th? --Kbob (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it Kbob. It needs to be brief and this seems to fit the bill. I cannot be sure of others of course. Alas, i would suspect that once i agree it is good a multitude will say "nah" perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself ;) The7thdr (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To make it flow from the rest of the article, I suggest adding one more sentence at the beginning saying that various kinds of advanced training in TM is offered beyond the initial 7-lesson course. Then the brief paragraph on the training centers and on TM Sidhi makes sense in that context as places for advanced training and one of the types of advanced training. Oh, and it looked from olive's edit summary that she intended to take out the part about the first two lectures being free, but neglected to do it. Should that bit come out? Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Including this information as Kbob suggests would be fine in this section, and I agree with Fladrif that a sentence is needed to add context. Maybe something like the below putting together Kbob's and Fladrif's suggestions. (olive (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)

Reception Section

Due to some recent additions, the Reception Section is now unduly weighted (in my opinion) in favor of the viewpoint that TM is a religion. To be fair we will either have to reduce the number of entries there or add other sentences to provide a counter viewpoint and establish nuetrality. I am purposely not getting into any specifics in this post right now but wanted to make this statement and open the discussion on this topic. It would be best to make a separate discussion section for each sentence and then take them one at a time. I know some editors may be in a hurry, but we have several people working on this article and we need to take our time and do it right. Other comments and insights are welcome. Enjoy!--Kbob (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A good comment. Please present some counter evidence. The7thdr (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of two sections that seem to me to be a bit unwieldy because of the way the information is organized and presented. (The research section is the other one I'm thinking of). A laundry list of "pro" and "con" positions on any point ends up forcing editors to engage in an artificial counting game to achieve a false sense of "balance". It may or may not be appropriate or necessary to add to or subtract from the sources currently cited; a reorganization of the current information to present it in a more encyclopedic fashion may solve the perception of one side or another of any particular debate appearing to have undue weight. But, better and more comprehensive research is always a good thing. Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The reception section (in particular, the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" subsection) looks to me to be a rather accurate explanation of how TM has been received. I'm unaware of some notable religious or spiritual tradition that has embraced TM in any significant way, that might be offered up as some counterweight to what's there. WP:DUCK. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions Fladrif, we can explore them more.--Kbob (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying Discussion Continued

I have a proposal. First let me review…. We agree (I think) that the TM course and the TM-Sidhi course are two separate courses. They are separate mental techniques with separate course structures, timelines, course fees etc. For this reason there is a separate WIKI article for the TM-Sidhi technique. However, since the TM-Sidhis have also received a lot of publicity and is one of the primary 'advanced' programs of TM, it makes sense that it could be mentioned in the TM article with a link to the TM-Sidhi page. I suggest we put it in the Origin section like this: (new sentence in brackets) In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. [Then in 1975, Maharishi began teaching an advanced mental technique called TM-Sidhi and which included a technique for the development of something he termed Yogic Flying.] In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.--What say ye, Olive and 7th? --Kbob (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it Kbob. It needs to be brief and this seems to fit the bill. I cannot be sure of others of course. Alas, i would suspect that once i agree it is good a multitude will say "nah" perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself ;) The7thdr (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To make it flow from the rest of the article, I suggest adding one more sentence at the beginning saying that various kinds of advanced training in TM is offered beyond the initial 7-lesson course. Then the brief paragraph on the training centers and on TM Sidhi makes sense in that context as places for advanced training and one of the types of advanced training. Oh, and it looked from olive's edit summary that she intended to take out the part about the first two lectures being free, but neglected to do it. Should that bit come out? Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Including this information as Kbob suggests would be fine in this section, and I agree with Fladrif that a sentence is needed to add context. Maybe something like the below putting together Kbob's and Fladrif's suggestions. (olive (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)

The four posts above have been moved down here to the bottom of the page so we can continue and hopefully finish this up together. I hope that's OK with everyone.--Kbob (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have all made good suggestions and I like Olive's re-write. However, I have changed the wording a bit to make it just a tad more readable (in my humble opinion). Does anyone like this version? (below)

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. However, as time went on Maharishi began teaching other, more advanced, techniques as well. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching a series of mental techniques that he termed the TM-Sidhi program. One of these mental techniques was something Maharishi called Yogic Flying. (Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.) --Kbob (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that olive's version is better because the phrase "other, more advanced" strikes me as having two POV issues. First, "other" suggests that it is different, and even unrelated to TM. My understanding is that they are related techniques,a "nd TM-Sidhi is an advanced form of TM at least in the sense that taking basic TM intruction is a prerequisite to learing TM-Sidhi. The phrase "more advanced" suggests that there is a double comparative, ie that TM is itself an advanced techhique compared to some unnamed and unidentified technique. So, I like Olive's version better.Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we add a bit on the Maharishi Vedic Observatory, fun-for-the-whole-family-home-edition? Isn't that another advanced application of TM, or maybe a bit of technology to assist in its practice? Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just looked at the German version of this article.[1]translated. I see it covers, at least in passing, the issues of yogic flying, selection of mantras, and fees: three of the main controversies. Is there any reason why this article can't cover those in a similar fashion?   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, that was another one of those "the editors decided" deals. Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_18#Protect_article.3F Archive 18 My own impression is that the German article is at once (i) shorter (ii) more comprehensive and encyclopedic in it's structure and approach, and (iii) more neutral than this article. Which is not to say that the German article doesn't have its own faults or could not be improved, but I agree that there is no reason this article could not follow the same approach. Fladrif (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, I have no problem using Olive's version if that is the consensus. I also would not object to removing the words 'other' and 'more' from my version if that is the only objection. Either way is OK with me. It would be nice to hear something from 7th on this as he was the editor who was the main proponent of this idea in the beginning. (I believe he started the section). Regarding the comparisons to the German version. I have comments on that but would prefer to discuss it in a separate section if someone would like to start one.--Kbob (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quickie: I am busy on other "projects" at the moment so won't be around (massive sighs of relief no doubt, Olive stops drinking again ;) ) Anyway, for what it's worth, good to see this coming along well now Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Change TM to Transcendental Meditation

There are a few instances in the article where the letters TM are used instead of the name Transcendental Meditation. Ninety percent of the time the phrase is spelled out. To be consistent I would like to change all the abreviations to the actual name spelled out completely. Does anyone object to this? Speak now or forever hold your peace....oh sorry I thought I was at a wedding for a minute :-) (jes kiddin)--Kbob (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. I noticed in the article, though, that it's often described as a technique. It is, I presume, correct to call it a "meditation technique?" Would it be preferable to use that expression (Transcendental Meditation technique) more often?ChemistryProf (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and WP: Weight

I wanted for reference purposes to add here my understanding of NPOV and its connection to WEIGHT. As I said on the COINB, NPOV is not an absolute but is determined per the article by the editors present to the best of those editors’ abilities and knowledge. NPOV does not and cannot exist in isolation from Weight and minority view points. Wikipedia should represent the subject in the same manner that it's represented in the academic literature and the mainstream media. These are sources that Wikipedia values. What is a minority view and how weight in an article is distributed especially in a contentious article must be discussed and is not the purvue of any editor or of any opinion. This article must mirror how TM is viewed mainstream, and we have to ascertain that. We haven't.

Judging editing practices by going back into archives is difficult if not impossible to assess, especially if that judgment is based on an opinion of what should or should not be in an article.The process I employed in adding material to the article was entirely correct and appropriate given the environment, mature and collegial, and was included with the caveat that the material could be deleted if any editor saw fit to do so with the implication that I would not revert.(olive (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree, NPOV and WEIGHT are two important aspects of any nuetral article. We need to consider these carefully especially when evaluating, discussing and editing the Religion and Spirituality section.--Kbob (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I would agree, but the problem for TM is that in the "general" in the media - and indeed a lot of academic media - TM is seen in what TM would consider a "negative" light. Going down this road might not be good for "pro" TM editors. Its this issue of weight also - it is closely tied to WIKIs policies on referencing in "medical" articles or "medical" issues in general articles. Generally at the moment, a large percentage of this article is filled with "medical" research yet to follow WIKI policies on this much of this would need to be removed. Firstly, much of it is repeated studies on the same physiological processes - does it really need so many studies on the same subject and does this not help to "hid" the critiques of said studies. A different sort of "weight" but an important one. However, of greater concern to me - and the reason that I "hang around" this article is the AGE of much of this research. per referencing standards in the medical literature - and as per WIKI guidleines ( see here: [[2]] ) except under unusual circumstances no study should be cited that is older than 5 years. This fact is clearly not reflected in the article at the moment. The7thdr (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points 7th. There are hundreds of newspaper articles on TM and scientific research. However, it would be good to research the weighting of that and if we have too much space devoted to the research we should cut it back. I will check the Wiki guide on age of the research. I had not heard of that before. If the article is outside the guideline certainly we should discuss how to bring it into line with Wiki policy. Enjoy the weekend. --Kbob (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Weight" is a relative valuation and is ultimately a judgment call. It is hard to say that an article definitely violates NPOV on account of weight, except in extreme cases. Weight is almost never a good reason for deleting all mention of an issue that has been reported in reliable sources. On a related note, there is apparently considerable scientific research on TM, so much so that it may be worth splitting it off into a separate article to avoid overwhelming the main article.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about several things The7thdr said and would like to follow up on some of these. The statements above about "medical" articles and "medical" statements sound intriguing, but where can I find discussion of these in the guidelines? AS for the "age" of some of the research cited, I can agree on one level, namely, that many newer studies exist that might be more important to cite than the older ones. However, I am puzzled about the 5-year rule or any rule about age of articles. There is nothing wrong with citing old articles if they are particularly relevant. In an article on Einstein, for example, it would be entirely appropriate to cite his 1905 article on the theory of relativity (or whatever it was) if that is the place the theory was introduced. So, I would question a year limit on an article's age. A better criterion would be how important that article is to the topic. Maybe this issue needs more attention in the TM article, and I appreciate your bringing it up. AS for the question of having a separate article on the TM research, that idea has considerable merit, but even if we did so, it seems to me that because the research is by far the most written about aspect of TM in the media, it should be significantly represented in the article. Maybe one way to do it would be to limit the research to those studies most relevant to understanding the nature and effects of the technique. These are central issues for the general article on TM it seems to me, and I would like to see more work done in this area. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. When articles get too long discrete chunks can be split off, leaving a summary of the information.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemprof: A Chemistery Professor who isn't aware of the 5 year rule? Shame on you ;-) Within the context of WIKI see here [[3]]. The point you make regarding our dear old Albert is valid but that is not the same as here and the reason for 5 years in medicine is very important. In simple terms, this is a field that is developing in its knowledge base rapidly and research cited from even 7 years ago may have been completely superseded in the last 5 - never mind research done 30 years ago as some of this here was conducted. For example, the junior doctors bible, Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine, ten years ago would have said that duodenal ulcer symptoms - and the ulcers themselves were mainly the result of psychosomatic origin - "stress" been the main one - and would have advised - except in certain cases - that the patient, especially under the age of 40 was sent home with some "anti-acids" perhaps some H2 antagonists and perhaps with some instructions to take up some from of meditation to ease "stress". however, it is now understood that 90 percent - perhaps more - of duodenal ulcers are actually caused by H. pylori infection and that combination of Amoxicillin, Metronidazole and Rabeprazole will actually kill the little blighters and help resolve the issue. Equally, 30 years ago, when a lot of this research was done, pregnant women and their unborn children would have been subjected to - to anyones horror now - high dosage abdominal X-rays to assess certain complications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, contentious, and discussion

The material I deleted last night should be removed again on principle for now:

As has been noted this is a contentious article and nothing should be added without discussion and consensus. The onus is always on the editor adding the material to justify adding it especially on a contentious article not the reverse as suggested There was no discussion, no justification given, and no consensus. Allowing another dump of material into the article just because it is sourced is inconsistent with the standards for editing on this article. Note the source in place is not WP:Reliable although there are other better sources.

Reception section: This section has become a dumping ground. There are now several edits of either new or rewritten material that were placed here without discussion or agreement. What is added must be added with NPOV and Weight per mainstream, in mind per weight of the article, and per weight of the section. This requires discussion. I do not support any of these non consensus additions on principle first of all because there was no discussion but also weight is being violated in multiple ways. The standards for editing on this article must be consistent and they aren’t now. I don't have issues with including some of this material, but weight is not being considered at all. I would like to suggest that a section on reception be rewritten here so that weight can be judged and so the section can be seen as a whole rather than just dumping whatever comes up into the actual article.(olive (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the US District Court of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation, was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment.[63][64] The court ruled that although SCI/TM is not a theistic religion it deals with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. The court found that the religious nature of the course was clear from careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the puja[65] , but also largely determined by apparent involvement of government. The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".[64]

In 1989, the Vatican released a document which was sharply critical of Transcendental Meditation, Zen and Yoga, saying it can `can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences. [6

Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden pointed out that the "...meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism [55] and that the claim to be scientific and not religious produce controversy at a number of levels..."

In The Sociology of Religious Movements, Willaim Sims Bainbridge has found TM to be a "...highly simplified form of Hinduism, adapted for Westerners who did not posses the cultural background to accept the full panoply of Hindu beliefs, symbols, and practices." ,[56] Going on to note that TM is an example of a "missionary" religious group which distills the essence of its own religious traditions to make itself more acceptable to its intended audience''

Final Approval Needed: TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying Addition

We are very close to a consensus on this (I think) so I am moving it down here (see below) so we it doesn't get lost. Please approve or suggest changes to this final proposal for the Origin section. This change was originally suggested by the7thdr. Please note that I have removed the words 'of what' which appeared after the word 'development' in the last sentence.--Kbob (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)

I approve the above copy. What do others say?--Kbob (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Maharishi

Needs to also mention the so called "Maharishi Effect" which led the "Sidhu" program, peace palaces, invincibility, et al. The discussion of the Maharishi Effect" would need to be continued on in a separate section I would suspect - including the "research" The7thdr (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Origin" section is chronological, so what's proposed doesn't go well in the first paragraph. If you want to add info about advanced techniques, it should be integrated into the chronology IMO. Roseapple (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Roseapple makes a good point. Is this any better?(olive (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. Initially the TM technique had been taught individually as a basic technique, but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques such as the TM-Sidhi Program, that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.).

In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.

Good point from RoseApple about keeping the chronlogy. I think Olive is aware of that. I like this version and give it my full approval.

7th, regarding the Maharishi Effect. As you know there was some discussion on that point and we can certainly continue. But I would like to get this sentence approved and then we can add another sentence on the Maharishi Effect if everyone decides that its good to add that also. Sorry to put you off. I just don't want to put off concluding this current sentence. As you know its not easy getting something finalized with so many editors so let's complete this and then consider the Maharishi Effect. OK? Thanks! :-)--Kbob (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points Kbob, I now see your logic and am in agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the two sentences on the TM-Sidhhi techniques to the article as discussed and agreed above. Some editors have suggested we also add Maharishi Vedic Observatory and the Maharishi Effect. So if someone wants to begin a new section to discuss these please go ahead. Just keep in mind that there are more than a dozen advanced techniques and programs such as vedic astology, vedic architecture etc. and these are already listed on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page. So we will need to evaluate what is really vital and relevant to this article on Transcendental Meditation. Also, it might be too redundant to list them all here don't ya think?--Kbob (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Basil Pennington

Does anyone have Pennington's book? In this article he seems to contrast TM with Christian meditation.[4] While he doesn't say that they are incompatible, he makes it clear that they are different things. Can someone quote the text we're citing?   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(moved from #deletion above)   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have Pennington 's book, but I'm not sure I understand your question. Perhaps you could clarify. I don't see the specific reference to Pennington in this article although there was one there at one time,I think. Pennington describes TM as not belonging to a "particular religion", as a way to Christian prayer,"and the quieting and rest prepare him well to enter...into more traditional forms of affective or meditative prayer" There is a chapter devoted to TM and Christian prayer (olive (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh I see. I missed the ref because I was reading the diff rather than here on the talk page. So he doesn't say much in that article,although he elaborates quite extensivley in his book. I would say he describes TM as a preparation for prayer since he says it brings one to the state in which true prayer can occur. Sorry about the misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but this continuous "branching" of topics within topics is very confusing. I have no idea what book you are referring to, could this be re-inserted into the original discussion please? For the sanity of us that don't read every single comment here? ;-) The7thdr (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 7th, this is standard Wikipedia. Its a new topic and a new thread. Will asked for information on Basil Pennington. I am offering the information. There is no discussion on Basil Pennington so far. This is the beginning. For your ease I'll insert the diff of Will's question here.Enjoy [5](olive (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Does Penningotn refer to "TM" (proper noun), or to transcendental meditation (general concept)? Could the editor who added it quote the text we're citing?   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have added but actually can't remember if it was already there or I put it in later. I believe whatever was in the article is meant to serve to summarize a nine page chapter.

" Maharishi Mahesh Yogi insists rather strongly that TM is not something that belongs to a particular religion. And he is right. It is as he says, a very simple natural technique....as he hands on the technique he tries to hand on also a certain respect for the venerable tradition out of which it comes. This in itself is good -the basic human virtue of pietas, of gratitude, But the technique can stand on its own."

I don't think there is a TM general concept unless its used incorrectly. TM is simply a mediation technique, and especially so in this article.(olive (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Is that a quote from Pennington? What does it have to do with Christianity?   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes its Pennington... You asked how he referred to TM. These are his exact words. I'm not sure what you are asking . You didn't say anything about Christianity.(olive (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

We assert that:

• Other clergy, including Catholic clergy, have found the Transcendental Meditation technique to be compatible with their religious teachings and beliefs.

And we cite Penningotn as one of those Catholic clergy. So what I'm asking is what does he say on the topic of the compatibility of TM with Christian teachings and beliefs?   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In general we are summarizing a chapter in which Pennington talks about the fact that the Christian can do TM and also be Christian. The two exist side by side .... that is they are compatible. Pennington also describes in detail how TM adds an aspect of readiness to Christian prayer, assists the Christian in prayer,and how an understanding of TM coincides with the Christian understanding of prayer. He parallels words by MMY and Thomas Merton. Does this help. I'm happy to provide more, if needed. Maybe what I can do is write something for other editors to look at, that describes this and integrates it into the section/ article (olive (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, that does help but it doesn't answer my questions. Does he refer only to TM (the teaching of Maharishi), or to the generic concept of transcendental meditation? In his other article he appears to refer to the latter rather than the former. Also, does he use the phrases "compatible" or "side by side"? What is his actual statement on the compatibility of TM and Christian teachings and beliefs? If we want to expand the space devoted to Catholic views of TM then a longer treatment of this source may be warranted.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I assumed that in his other article he was referring to TM so that's why I probably misunderstood what you wanted. The book's chapter is completely on the TM technique as taught by MMY. And no "side by side" and "compatible" are my words in attempts to summarize.He never uses the words Catholic he refers exclusively to "the Christian". Within the chapter he draws numerous parallels of the TM technique to Christianity noting its usefulness, its likeness to... I'm not sure how else to say it.... but I maybe see your point. It is obvious from the nine pages he finds the technique to not only be compatible but helpful to Christian prayer but he doesn't actually use the words compatible so this little line in our article may be a pretty subtle form of OR. I guess I would suggest rewriting the line in the article . Since I have the book I could do that.(olive (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Maybe that would be a good idea. Could you please post a fresh suggestion here? Ideally, it should summarize his views of TM.   Will Beback  talk 

Removal fee section

I actually removed something earlier if I remember, that 7th had wanted removed. I'm happy to remove the "fee" material, Fladrif mentioned though. Makes the thing sound less like an advert. If someone really wants it in please revert I'm not attached.(olive (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Seems like good logic to me. Who wants to read an advertisement? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what section you're referring to, since there doesn't appear to be a "fee section". However the fees charged for TM are part of the controversy surrounding it. I don't recommend removing all mention of the fact that significant fees are charged. NPOV requires that all views are included, so this needs to be covered one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This refers to Fladrif's comment on the fact that the first two lectures are free -"fee material" from the Procedure section, and was not a controversial entry or edit.(olive (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

So where are the fees discussed?   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the current version of the article,the only mention of fees was the couple of words on the first two lectures being free. Olive has now removed that. I don't have any problem with those being removed - it did sound a bit like an advert.

If you go back in the archives for the article, editors have gone back and forth on whether a discussion of the level of fees currently being charged for instruction is appropriate or not. The arguments for including it would seem to be that: there was considerable controversy generated when the fees were very rapidly increased from less than $500 to $2500 (more recently reduced to $2000, if I understand correctly), leading to a number of developments (i) many TM teachers refusing to charge the high fees, breaking away to teach on their own (ii) the registration of TM as a service mark and efforts of the service mark holder to enforce the service mark, including re-certification and re-training of TM teachers; (iii) TM instruction being suspended in some countries as a result of the foregoing; (iv) questions as to whether high fees in "first world" countries were subsidizing activities in third world countries, (v) whether the fee increases contributed to the rapid decline in new TM enrollments in the mid to late 70's etc... The "con" arguments would seem to be that discussing fees gets into the article looking promotional and that these other issues aren't really notable or appropriately sourced. I don't really know where I come down on the notability argument or whether it really goes in an encyclopedia article, but it did look to me like most of this stuff was appropriately sourced, or could be reliably sourced given just a bit of Googling. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the difffrom last December when olive deleted the section on "Issues of Cost" as "redundant". I don't understand why the deleted material, which was contained nowhere else in the article, is redundant. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) It does not appear, from a cursory review of Archive 18, that there was any discussion of removing that information on the Talk page at the time of that edit.Fladrif (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look on Google, I see this book: The Future of Religion By Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge, University of California Press 1986, [6]. It has a lot of information about fees in the 1970s. Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, [7] also mentions the fees, plus has quite a bit on mantras and initiations. Here's a paper that touches on fees, "The Secular Selling of a Religion"[8]. I'm sure there are more. There are many scholarly sources for this topic.   Will Beback  talk  18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The editing practices/disputes/discussions/whatever that led to these categories of information being excised from the article predate my involvement on this page. But, while a review of the Talk page archives reveal various claims from time to time that the material lacked reliable sources, those claims do not appear to have been well-founded or legitimate arguments for the deletions that occurred. Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Will I had a quick look at the book Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides. I haven't had a look at the other two but will do so when I get a chance...I thought his section on "Is TM a religion?" was quite good...he presents reasons for why TM might be considered a Religion and why it might not. There didn't appear to be any substantial info on the price of TM though. In regards to the price one of the questions in the past has been that since TM is priced differently from country to country should one just list the USA fee or all the fees or some of the fees or none of the fees.--Uncreated (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Redundant" referred to the fact that a suggestion had been made to move information about fees to the procedure section. The links on fees in the issues of cost section were spam links and either before or just after that were removed from the ref section as well with consensus and under the direction of Ronz who seems to specialize in links. Some of that ongoing discussion is here[9][10] Once a more general note was added in the procedure section the info in the bottom section was redundant ... Note also I made the change to see what it looked like with the comment that it could certainly be removed. The mantra bit was not referenced, and as it was really had no place unless referenced. Discussion on mantra has been ongoing in this article and could be visited again as far as I'm concerned if the topic is considered notable enough for inclusion.(olive (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Since this is a contentious topic, it might be better to wait for a response on a talk page rather then making the edit and inviting people to revert it. As for the fees, another source, which meets the requirements for an RS even if it's not ideal, is The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions. It says, "Its insistence on fees for initial instruction has left some wondering at its motives, but the movement is not, to all appearances, an exploitative one."[11] It'd be better to track down the source for that, but it can also be used directly.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of these discussions and agreements, such as those listed by Olive, appear to be among editors who share a viewpoint on this topic. That's why NPOV policy is described as non-negotiable. In other words, an agreement by editors to delete material required for NPOV doesn't mean that the material should be deleted. It looks like TimidGuy proposed that the key areas of disputes about TM were not "major controversies" and so could be omitted, and then a couple of editors agreed with him. If that's what happened then it was probably inconsistent with good editing practices.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last comment for a while. I feel that the fee section needs to reinserted. A number of TM teachers - as is well documented - left the movement for the very reason of rising fees - resources available all over for those that want to look. This is why many of them - while believing TM worth while - offer none official training at lower costs. There use to be a discussion of this including alternatives listed. This is important and I feel reintegrated to the article. It is certainly noteworthy The7thdr (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The refs 7th refers were links to sites advertising techniques and so are not appropriate references but are considered spam. If the topic is considered notable enough I have no problem adding some information with appropriate refs.(olive (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

See the refs I found. TM has been thoroughly covered and there are plenty of sources available. Would editors please draft a replacement section to cover this controversy?   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm piecing together bits for this. Here is one bit that I'll park here for further use:

Instruction in TM in Bermuda was temporarily suspended in 2003, in part over the refusal of local TM instructors to implement orders from TM world headquarters in August 2002 to increase fees for intial lessons from $385 to $2000. Fladrif (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

While interesting that teaching was temporarily suspended in Bermuda, I wouldn't think that was particularly relevant in regards to being a reflection of what goes on in the Global TM Organisation or that there was any wide spread dissent about the price of teaching TM. After all it was only temporarily suspended and not stopped...I'm surprised this made a newspaper, it must have been a slow week.--Uncreated (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In and of itself, perhaps not. But it is indeed indicitive, being just one example, of what did happen worldwide when fees were dramatically increased. The complaint voiced by these teachers - that the fee increases were incompatible with the concept that TM should be for everyone, and that it make it look that TM was now only for the wealthy - was widely expressed, and is part of the controversy over the fees. It led to the defection of many teachers, who decided to offer instruction separately from the TM organization at lower, or in some cases, no cost. The article also touches on the related controversy over charging subtantial differences in fees mandated by the TM organization from country to country. I parked this article here pending assembly of more reliable sources, of which there are many.

Remember, what is trademarked (actually servicemarked) is not the TM meditation technique. That can't be trademarked or patented. The servicemarks "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" only covers instruction in the technique. Anybody can teach TM, they simply can't call it TM. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At the scale you are talking about it would relevant, so it would be interesting to see any sources you have to suggest this happened. One or two teachers here or there who get the pip with the TM movement and air it in a newspaper seems more sensational to me than anything substantial...and after all they did start teaching again a few months later. Just to keep some perspective I understand TM Literature describes about 40,000 TM teachers having been trained by the TM Organisation. However like I said it will be interesting to see your other sources.--Uncreated (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided other sources. This is a topic of controversy concerning the TM movement and it should be covered in this article, per WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough...but it seems people are trying to make a number of different points concerning the fees, a number of which I have not seen sources for.--Uncreated (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind including something about the cost of starting TM. Uncreated, though, makes a fair and legitimate point. WP:Weight says "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Every organization is full of controversy large and small. What has to be discerned is the "size" of the controversy and that can't be any of our opinions but has to be measured in terms of mainstream views. This may be difficult to do in this instance since what we are measuring are press reports where mention is made of the fee structure against all of the other articles on TM where no one says anything. For this reason I doubt there is a definitive on this. For that reason I'd be willing to put in a mention but relatively short. Since a couple of other issues have been brought up I wanted to add a comment for accuracy of information purposes.

• One can not say that one is teaching the TM program or Transcendental Meditation program unless licensed to do so as they are federally registered service marks and that would be a violation of federal and state statutory and common law service mark law. Further, an unlicensed person can not teach that program as all those who have received the requisite training, certification and licensing to teach the named techniques have agreed contractually that they will not teach the program without license and have agreed that the training and instructional information and materials are proprietary and will not be used unless approved by the licsensor of those service marks.
• As a practical matter, if one can not say one is teaching the Transcendental Meditation program how would anyone else ever know they were teaching or practicing the TM program?
• Natural Stress Relief is not TM as they note here[12], and their site is commercial in nature.

I've seen this argument in the archives here, I think on the medical studies. I'll paraphrase: "There are hundreds of studies showing meditation is great, and only one saying it isn't, so it gives undue weight to the one unfavorable study to mention it at all, unless we mention all 800 favorable studies, so let's not say anything about the unfavorable study." That's not what WP:WEIGHT means. I see a lot of posturing here, laying the groundwork for objecting to what someone might propose to say in the article, which seems like jumping the gun, and not a lot of effort to actually do some constructive editing.Fladrif (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is consensus that something should be mentioned about the fee, even if its only the price or a range of prices in different countries it costs to learn TM...but at this point it is still unclear to myself what additional information should be added that is constructive.--Uncreated (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Fladrif brought up the issue of Trademark, material has been added here, to if possible, help clarify those points. Since the issue of refs for a section on fee structure has been brought up, material on NSR which was linked in the past was also added as information. I note the difficulty in assessing the weight of the article in this particular topic area because so little information exists that discusses the fee structure except in a negative light. However weight must be discussed and some standard reached. Not sure what archives you are talking about and actually would prefer to just stay with the here and now of this article if at all possible. Ground work has to be laid when editing in collaborative editing so everyone can arrive on the same page in terms of agreement/consensus. Every editor does what they think needs doing. In my mind, AGF means we just accept others contributions as appropriate for them.(olive (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Whatever we say has to come out of a source, sorry that's obvious I guess... so however that is worded... and commenting on the fees considered by some to be too high. I actually wouldn't want to get into fees structures for different countries ... where would you stop and what is representative is unclear given the fees' range in different part of the world. A preliminary thought.(olive (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

I have no problem with a sentence about the fees for TM. I don't see the need for it, but if the consensus it to have it in, then its OK with me. I do object however, to commentary and opinions about the fee unless the are shown to be widespread, notable WP:NOTABILITY and solidly sourced. --Kbob (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same standard used for all material in this article? I'd be surprised if it is. It's important to be consistent. There is no requirement that views of a topic be widespread, simply that they be significant. Almost any viewpoint that appears in a reliable source (aside from a passing mention) is likely to be significant. WP:NOTABILITY applies to whether WP should have a standalone article on a topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source for the importance of fees inthe TM movement:

• ...Transcendental Meditation movement turned toward increased emphasis upon unusual supernatural compensators, thus increasing its tension, after recruitment of new members collapsed. Most dedicated members were teachers of the TM meditation technique, and their hopes for increased 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.
  • The Sociology of Religious Movements By William Sims Bainbridge, Routledge, 1997 ISBN 0415912024 p. 82

So he appears to say that the fees were integral to the movement and its most dedicated members.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is so erroneous as to be laughable. TM teachers at the best of times did and do not make a lot teaching TM. Financial rewards and status is equally ridiculous. Most are dedicated to the people they are teaching and to what they consider to be something of value. I think that if you look in the mainstream press you'll find very little mention of fees, maybe a handful of comments and very few articles dedicated to the issue of cost... and what the heck is a "supernatural compensator".

Another way of looking at the flow of students is to note that at times when students increased substantially was after publicity such as the Merv Griffin show, than as happens when the publicity faded things slowed down. Well I believe Bainbridge is so far off the mark as to be absurd, but i am not against including something about cost... I think some editors are saying lets talk about the rise in fees others are saying lets talk about the fees themselves. Of note fees in the US are very different than fees in other countries especially third world countries. So I would think that the "cost of TM controversy" is limited to some of the Western countries and is not a constant. I guess that of there are controversies, true controversies, there would be a lot of it in the press but there isn't so.....one has to ask what is controversy and what is opinion and Wikipedia isn't about listing every opinion. That said I don't at the moment know how to deal with this particular topic but will think about it along with everyone else, I guess.(olive (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

It isn't helpful to say that eminent scholars are so wrong as to be laughbale based only on our own personal experience. Bainbridge doesn't say that there was much income from the fees, but rather that dedicated members saw the fees as a way of of producing financial rewards. It appears to me that a problem with this article is that editors aren't doing sufficient research. I suggest that the best remedy would be to collect research on individual topics, like fees, on a subpage of this talk page. After a comprehensive survey of material on the issue has been prepared then editors can summarize the sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right it isn't helpful and I apologize for taking this lightly. Things are not necessarily pleasant over here so lightness seemed a nice break. This eminent scholar is voicing opinion and its not accurate and is far enough off for me to say its absurd. However, that is a personal comment on the material, and although I think its fine to comment every now and then it may not be helping the article. Bainbridge has some pretty obvious biases so I'm not excited by using him but I didn't say at this point remove him.

I'm not willing to judge anyone on this page in terms of what they are doing, and I hope other editors will extend the same courtesy to me.(olive (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Will that sounds good about setting up a sub page for each individual topic. I have no idea how to so....--Uncreated (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Procedure

It is my understanding that at the present time we have a consensus policy on this article. This means that we reach consensus on any addition or edit to this article only after proper dicussion to evaluate its weight, neutrality, quality of sources etc. Support for this kind of a policy has been expressed by all active editors on this article: Will Beback, Kbob, Fladrif, the7thdr, Olive and Uncreated. To substantiate this understanding I have copied posts made previously by all of these editors expressing their support for this kind of a procedure. The comments below were made between the period of March 2-6, 2009 (except for the very last two). If as a group we would like to dicuss and amend this policy then let us do so now. In the meantime I have reversed ADM's recent addition to the article re: comments from the Catholic church. I understand that this was an innocent mistake on ADM's part since he is new to the current discussions of the past month. If we want to make progress on the article we need an agreed procedure for edits. If some of us don't like the policy as I have outline above then let's discuss it and create an amended version. Thanks for you input and discussion on this and we welcome ADM to the article. Peace. :-) --Kbob (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

it'd be better if you didn't make that edit without discussion first. It'd be better to provide all the significant viewpoints on this matter. Will Beback talk 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't decide which POVs are correct and which aren't - instead we report the dispute and give all sides. Will Beback talk 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlewomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think? Peace! --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009

[in response to above post] Sounds good to me.--Uncreated (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In general I think it will be easier for everyone if we discuss changes here and then post suggested copy and after it is agreed upon, enter it in the article. This includes any new content regarding the mantra. Can we agree on this also? Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[in reponse to above post] I can't speak for everyone else Kbob, but yes, that sounds like a very good idea :) Now, I'm off for a while; meditating to do - really :) The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, do not remove anything - until it is discussed. Three TMers saying "take it out" without discussion is not agreement. The7thdr (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a contentious topic, it might be better to wait for a response on a talk page rather then making the edit and inviting people to revert it. Will Beback talk 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see from the revert of the Vatican information which I removed because there was no discussion, consensus, nothing, the standard I thought we were operating under here, that this is no longer the case. So any one can add anything without discussion or comment as long as its sourced even poorly sourced and then wait to see if everyone agrees or not? I was operating under the old rules. Discuss first, reach agreement then add. (olive (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

---

End copies of previous posts on Consensus. --Kbob (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (Moved)Fladrif (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, Thanks for organizing this section so nicely, after I kinda messed them up. Nice job! --Kbob (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a correct view of Wikipedia policies. Consensus is important, but it does not override core policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:V. Perhaps most important for this page, NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints about a topic be included. While editors here can agree amongst themselves the best way of including those viewpoints, they cannot decide to exclude them. WP:WEIGHT is a component of NPOV, and while editors may disagree about exactly how much weight to devote to a topic, it should not be used as an excuse to delete it outright. Likewise, editors may not decide that otherwise unsuitable sources are reliable for the purposes of this article, and they should be careful about excluding sources that meet the general requirements of WP:V. If there are any questions about how to interpret those policies there are noticeboards devoted to each one. Requests for comment are another good way of gettig outside input. To summarize, consenuss is an important part of editing on Wikipedia but adherence to content policies is more important.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good points Will. This is what I alluded to in my sentence above ("This means that we reach consensus on any addition or edit to this article only after proper dicussion to evaluate its weight, neutrality, quality of sources etc.") I was assuming that once the addition/deletion is evaluated in light of Wiki policies that a consensus of agreement to follow the Wiki policies would be automatic. But that may not always be the case. So your point about consensus is well taken. Consensus does not override Wiki polices and guidelines, its not a democracy. However, what I was trying to say, and I thank you for clarifying, is that this is a contentious page and we need discussion first before adding or deleting and that discussion should evaluate the suggested addition or deletion in the light of Wiki policies, many of which you mention in your post. Thank you for clarifying my post.--Kbob (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree completely with the view of NPOV as it is being described here and I think some issues are being conflated so I thought I'd add my sense of it. Again this is another ground laying point, so that we are all understanding where the others are coming from. As Kbob outlined we had a standard for editing that had been established on this article. It either applies to everyone or to no one. If that is to change that's fine but it changes for everyone and for everything , otherwise we set up control /power situations and wander into the territory of WP:OWN-not good on any article but especially a contentious article. This is one kind of consensus but not WP:consensus, and might be better called as Kbob said a gentleman's agreement for this article.

• Wikipedia must be neutral. How that neutrality is achieved depends on the policies and guidelines as they are needed and come into play. NPOV is a pillar content policy. Consensus is a pillar "code of conduct"/ behavioural policy. Deciding what is NPOV is not always apparent nor a definite in which case a general agreement among editors on the article comes into play. One doesn't override the other so much as they operate at different points and levels of editing discussion. If NPOV cannot be decided then WP:DR comes into play--- mediation for starters.

• Weight cannot be separated out from NPOV, and one is actually a subset of the other. Weight is a means of making sure that NPOV is being upheld especially with minority vs majority views. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." and "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Obviously there are subjective and varying views on this discussion page about what are majority and minority views. In such cases in my opinion anyway, no editor's view is correct, but the group must go to the code of conduct, behavioural policy for an editing community, and reach some agreement... consensus. In "proportion to their representation in reliable sources" can be judged somewhat by using GOOGLE NEWS, although it not something I've done myself.(olive (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

An observation - the issues of "Weight" and NPOV are beginning to "drown" the discussion in this article. The talk page here is about TM not NPOV or Weight. Perhaps those interested in this subjects could go to the relevant WIKI articles and boards. If these need to be discussed within the context of certain sections than this is fine, but once again, discussion here is is losing focus as it wonders off in tangents in other sections. In the past this has meant that the article simply remains the same - until everyone loses interest; people "move on" and then editors with obvious "POV" - on both sides - end up editing the article directly anyway.

So, specific discussion of WEIGHT and NPOV should be held within the discussion of "contentious" - or even none contentious - edits if necessary. But entire sections dedicated to this discussion do not belong here. If editors cannot come to agreement regarding the weight or POV of specific edits than WIKI has many boards where impartial advice can be requested from.

This might be the best way forward. Kbob and Will, I notice seem, to be especially good at this more focused discussion. Perhaps this is the way forward. The7thdr (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point 7th...However as well, most points of discussion to this point have have been contentious and unless there is a clear and agreed upon standard for what those policies mean here, we can't apply them as a group and we will be going no where fast.(olive (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive - I'm presently listening to Sony's re-mastering of Szell's Mozart recordings - under Sony's "Original jackets" series (if you enjoy Mozart then I would recommend this set). Ten CDs - with extras above and beyond the original old vinyl albums. Szell's interpretations of Mozart are far different to the neo-romanticism of most of his peers during the 50s and 60s. Indeed, he once said:

"There is a difference between the chaste sensuality of Mozart or Haydn and the lascivious sensuality of Richard Strauss. One cannot pour chocolate sauce over asparagus." :-)

He also said, that his interpretation of each piece of music was specific to that piece, that his thoughts on one might differ to another given context, meaning, historical, biographical information, etc. The same applies to WIKI guidelines - there is some fluidity to them and this "fluidity" defined by each situation. Any agreement here regarding "Weight" or NPOV will once again be rediscussed as each new issue arrives. It is wiser to treat these areas as they arise within the context of specific points here. Let us keep the general discussions of this things to the sections of WIKI where such discussion takes place :-) The7thdr (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh 7th. You just went into a discussion on Mozart to make a point on digression... now you have to laugh at that... Yes I love Mozart.(olive (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

That was the point Olive :-P And thought you might :-) The7thdr (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yuck, can't stand classical music. :-) --Kbob (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument that googling a subject in the news archives to decide how much prominence it should be given in an article is absurd on its face. But, let's play along: If I Google "Transcendental Meditation" in the news archive, I get 7,750 hits; if I Google "Transcendental Meditation" and "medical research", I get 31 hits. Clearly, by the logic of this argument, the mainstream press view of TM is that it has virtually nothing to do with medical research, yet fully one half of the article as presently constituted is about medical research. In contrast, combining TM with "controversy" gets 146 hits - nearly five times as many; "fees" 323 - 10 times as many; "catholic" 375 - 12 times as many; "religion" 930 hits - 30 times as many. Do you really want to continue to play this game? "cult" 394 hits; "flying" 425 hits; "ridicules" 111 hits;....and my favorite "robots" 32 hits. So TM has as much to do with robots in the popular press as it does with medical research! I'm going to start right away writing about 25 paragraphs/1800 words on TM and robots to achieve an appropriate balance with the medical research section! 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is used on Wikipedia as a way to measure news and media prominence. If I use google news I get 11,800 hits for Transcendental Meditation, 2,930 hits for Research Transcendental Meditation Technique, 897 for medical research, 1,650 for health benefits. We don't seem to be getting the same results.

I wanted to mention that if a user (name) here is also using an IP because they are another computer .... the standard is to mention it on the page otherwise the IP could be confused with a sock puppet of the user (name).(olive (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm putting the words "transcendental meditation" in quotes, searching for the phrase rather than the individual words. Hence the difference in the number of Google hits. Your method is producing Google hits like this for transcendental meditation or this for transcendental meditation medical research, neither of which have anything to do with TM.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not me, but have to say that only a tin foil hater would think that was a sock puppet - so I wouldn't worry Olive :-) The7thdr (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no misunderstanding...Not accusing... just wanted to mention the convention in case the user is not familiar with it.(olive (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC))