Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

NPOV violation of lead

Selecting a few studies to support a view while ignoring others, and ignoring a summary of the content in the article itself to present a one sided view constitutes and creates a POV, and creates a lead that is patently absurd. The lead must summarize and reflect the article. if this paragraph is not pulled out and rewritten to comply with NPOV and WP:LEAD standards we need to ask for formal mediation. Enough is enough. (olive (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

You mean while not mentioning reviews done by people affiliated with the TM organization? It specifically says independent. One could say non independent reviews done with funding from supporters of TM found favorable results. But we already say that in the body of the text and I do not think it warrants mentioning in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A single editor does not define the lead. The lead summarizes the article. Further, your insistence on using the self defined word "independent" to create a POV, while ignoring the peer review process and the reviews used in the article, discredits the researchers, the peer review, and the publication. That strikes me as a mighty tenuous position for any editor. Further your implied and continued insistence that the so called TM editors are not capable of neutral editing smacks of a violation of WP:AGF. Lets see if we can move along here and leave those concerns behind. The lead must be rewritten to fairly and neutrally summarize the article. End of story.(olive (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

The lead still does not summarize what is in the article rather than make specific references to certain kinds of reviews and as opposed to summarizing the state of the research as a whole, but I made some changes to the wording to try and reflect the sources more closely.(olive (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

If you read the RfC you will notice a number of editors commented in support of the version I put forwards. I changed it back to the RfC version which already correctly summarized the research. I agree with Olive above enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would that "number of editors", that is uninvolved editors be the number 2, or am I miscounting? --BwB (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to get outside input. In an RfC, two responses is typical. In this case all (both) of the outside input gave the same response. Is anyone here suggesting we ignore the outside input?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We already answered that question. TimidGuy pointed out that these external editors were misinformed. We saw one of them gradually change its view point as he received more information. Besides, these inputs are there or should be there to help us apply the policy. So, let us work on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk)

Ah, they were misinformed. Of course! And we know that how? Because TG said so? Should we ignore the outside input since you and TG believe it's wrong?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of opinion flying around here. We are looking for agreement among a majority of editors, and we don't have that, but are at an impasse. Right now we have two major issues; whether the lead in a short paragraph that for the most part references two reviews summarizes, health outcomes, mental function, criminal rehabilitaion and addiction, effects on the brain, and effects on the physiology, and second whether whatever is in the lead now accurately reflects the sources. If we delineate these two issues rather than conflate them and stick to the issues at hand we might be able to reach some agreement. No?(23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

If there's an impasse among involved editors then the preferred way of resolving that is to get outside input.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting TM. We should keep this in mind. It is also not a platform to compensate for a legitimate and normal promotion of TM outside Wikipedia. I do not think that the popular media and the research is biased by this TM promotion more than it is in any other direction, but even if it was, the job of all editors is to represent fairly and proportionally what is in the published research outside Wikipedia (especially, the meta-analyses). If you want, you can try having peer-reviewed journals stop publishing meta-analyses that show the positive effects of TM, but in Wikipedia you must respect these highly reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

War? That's hyperbole. Let's try to keep the discussion here on a more reasonable basis and avoid inflammatory language.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Made some modifications. Took out war. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please review your edits before pressing the "save page" button.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I'm sure all editors make comments which that they might later like to retract or which contain errors. (olive (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I often correct my spelling and grammar mistakes. However those are not the kinds of changes that ESL is needing to make. Making inflammatory or personal remarks and then removing them after being called on them is not a very collegial method.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was necessary that I remove any wordings that could detract the attention from the main point because I really feel it is an important point. In fact, I think it is about the current "war", oops no, I mean, difficulty that con-TMs have with the research on TM. They ignore that though TM is a well identified organisation, there is as much opposition to TM (for different kind of reasons, religious, financial, etc.) than there is support for TM in the world. It is not because this opposition is not under a well identified unique umbrella that it does not exist. So, using the affiliation to detect the bias is not fair. It is one sided. The only fair solution that we have against this kind of bias is peer-review, a well designed methodology, etc. With regard to your last concern, Will, I felt that since I acknowledged that I made some modifications, you had no reason to be embarrassed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are these "con-TMs" to whom you're referring? Do they have names? Are there "pro-TMs"? Who are they? On what basis are you drawing these distinctions? Do you belong to one of these categories, or are you one of the "neutral editors"? Since you're so eager to share your opinions about editors and their motivations I'd like to hear more about yours.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia editors and authors outside Wikipedia did not mention or use the pro-TM or con-TM argument, it will be great. Unfortunately, I often see the pro-TM argument used here in this talk page, things like "only pro-TMs editors think like that ..." or "the authors are pro-TM and therefore we should not rely on the paper"). I can easily provide diffs for statements of this kind. Authors also use it. For example, Ospina et al wrote "the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization". You suggest a very good point that even strengthen my argument. You suggest that con-TMs but also even pro-TMs are not easy to identify. You are right that I cannot easily identify them. I agree. Affiliation is perhaps not a very efficient criteria. So, it is not fair to use the affiliation to evaluate a possible inclination of the authors. It only focuses on a couple of authors and only among those with a possible inclination to support TM and ignores a possible inclination of reviewers, editors, authors for the AHRQ report, Cochrane reviews, etc. It's one sided because only some editors in one side can be formally identified. In our evaluation of reliable sources, we should put aside this kind of arguments and focus on the quality of the review process and on other criteria that are not one-sided and cannot violate NPOV. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any posts that say "only pro-TMs editors think like that ..." or "the authors are pro-TM and therefore we should not rely on the paper". Please provide the diffs to support your claims, or stop making them.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I said I can find diffs for statements like those. I did not felt necessary to provide them before, since I thought you had no doubt that I can do that. Since you now ask, I will provide them. You just made your request before this recent arbitration request of Doc James. I will provide them soon. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes diffs are ALWAYS needed much as references are always needed. Only concrete statements and context can be discussed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just read the above thread again and it was not important in this thread to refer to how editors consider pro-TM versus con-TM. What is important in this thread is how a TM affiliation is used to weight the reliability of sources. Using an affiliation is a one-sided argument because we cannot use it with authors, referees or editors that have an inclination against TM (say because of a personal belief, an influence of large corporations or simply an irrational fear or scepticism). It is one-sided because only one side (or a part of it) is under a well identified umbrella. Fortunately, the policy put the emphasis on the review process and on how other sources cite a given source. This is the main criteria and we should stick to it. I am not saying the affiliation is irrelevant, but it is already taken into account in the review process in a much more neutral and balanced way that we can do it here. Considering it again here in this talk page to weight the reliability of a meta-analysis can only add a bias by putting an extra and much too strong emphasis on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, even though it is not useful in this thread, because Doc James insisted, here are some paste and cut from this talk page. You can easily find the context using a search.

• Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input.
• No one who is not a member of TM seems to however be agreeing with your position.
• You will need to convince Wikipedia editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument.

It is beside the main point in this thread, but I think they are examples that illustrate a fundamental mistrust and unwillingness to honestly discuss here, which seriously impair our ability to progress. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

None of this thread seems to concern edits to this article. I suggest that we either delete it or archive it.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why this think now Will? You participated in this thread several time in the last few days. Why the feeling to delete or archive now? --BwB (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article."

We seem to have about eight threads going on the lead, and most of them have drifted from that topic.   Will Beback  talk  16:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding Anderson meta-analysis

I propose that a statement that represents fairly the 2008 Anderson meta-analysis on the effect of TM on blood pressure is added in the Intro. The only argument against its inclusion have been shown against policy in this thread and no one counter replied. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about Anderson in this thread. Maybe we have too many threads going.   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See [1]. The arguments used to give a low weight to the Anderson meta-analysis are of the kind considered in this thread. I would like that we discuss this issue in good faith. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, a "thread" usually refers to a talk page section. This thread/section is "NPOV violation of lead".

I don't see where in the linked thread that a policy violation was proven, or where there was a failure to reply. Is there any doubt that we are discussing this in good faith? If so, that discussion should take place elsewhere. This talk page is just for the discussion of improvements to the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes I have doubts, but I sincerely tried not to express them. Now that you ask the question, I have no choice as to explain why I have these doubts. It's because, just above, I and BwB have attempted a few times to bring your attention on the arguments used to consider edits in the Intro, but without any success. In particular, I don't understand your issue about the scope of a thread, as if we cannot refer to another thread from within a thread. The weight that we give to a source, even if it is considered in another thread, is highly relevant to a wanted NPOV in the Intro. Now, please, they are only doubts based on unsuccesful repeated attempts to bring your attention to the actual arguments. I don't provide diffs because they are just above in the current thread. The best we can do at this time is to forget about these doubts and focus on the arguments. If you need a specific paragraph to consider, use this one #Evaluation of sources - reply. BTW, this is actually a reply to a question you asked #Evaluation of sources, which I did not understood at the time. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a distraction. Let's maintain our focus here on the article and leave meta-discussions for other pages.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I maintain my proposal that a statement that represents fairly the 2008 Anderson meta-analysis on the effect of TM on blood pressure is added in the Intro. This is clearly a natural proposal in the context of this section "NPOV violation of lead". Here is a draft

A 2008 random-effects meta-analysis of nine trials suggests that Transcendental Meditation is associated with a significant reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure that is likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease in the long term.

Is there any argument based on the policy against the inclusion of such a statement? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Devoting that much space to a single review would unbalance the intro.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The effect of TM on blood pressure is one of the most prominent POV (i.e., studied effect) on the context of TM. Even the reviews currently used in the Intro say so. The POV that TM significantly reduces blood pressure is supported by at the least another systematic review, if not more. It has been reported in scientific TV programs and general audience news clips. If you do a search on meditation meta-analysis OR review (or on "transcendental meditation" meta-analysis OR review) on Google Scholar [2], the Anderson meta-analysis appears early in the results together with many other studies and reviews that contradict the current POV in the Intro. On the other hand, even after 18 pages (180 entries) we do not see the Ospina review, one of the review that is currently used in the Intro. So, clearly there is something wrong here, a clear NPOV violation in the Intro. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How would including this review unbalance the intro? (olive (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

The policy in question would be WP:DUE.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I provided evidence that the POV that TM reduces blood pressure (and has other beneficial effects on health) is highly prominent. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how adding one review with positive findings to a lead that characterizes all of the TM research negatively and does not present an accurate summary of what is in the article, violates undue. At the same time I believe that the lead should, on the research, be more of a summary with reviews used as examples rather than using the reviews as if they are definitive for the research as a whole.(olive (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

What we have now is not all negative characteristics. Health education is exceeding important and effective. TM may be as effective as this very important treatment. I thus do not consider what we have an insult against this practice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc this has nothing to do with the practice. Nobody has to concede anything to the practice and I don't see that anyone here is asking for that. You cannot choose one or two reviews to characterize definitively a whole field of research. We must summarize the content in the article. Its a purely technical writing point... if we have ABCD in the article we summarize ABCD. If A and B are red and C and D are blue we can say , there are reds and blues and A is an example of red and B is an example of blue. We can't say A and B are red and so everything is red... that violates a host of policies; WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV. (olive (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

We currently devote about 84 words to the scientific research, and don't mention any specific reviews or studies. To increase that by 50% to report on only one review is undue weight. Here's the curent text:

• Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[19][20][21][22] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[23][24][21] Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.[25][26]

Perhaps we could add a short bit, something like:

• Studies and a review conducted or funded by TM-affiliated people have found more positive results.

Or something of that length and specificity.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is a proposal to present Anderson meta-analysis and studies included therein, I believe it is a misunderstanding of the following key sentences in No Original Research:

Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Your proposal was not sourced in Anderson's paper. It seems like a statement that could be sourced in Ospina (AHRQ), Krisanaprakornkit (Cochrane) or Canter. Referring to Anderson review using the angle of these other reviews is not at all the same thing as presenting Anderson review fairly, without bias. The POV in Anderson review is not only sourced in that review, but also in many other studies and reviews. It is even reported in scientific TV programs, etc. So, it is a prominent POV and it must be included in the Intro, fairly, without bias, as it is presented in these reliable sources. Ospina, Krisanaprakornkit, Canter do not have the only valid scientific angle or approach. The Intro should not give undue weight to selected reviews that present one POV, even if editors, including a few external contributors in Rfc, believe that this POV is the scientific consensus. Please, let us stick to the sources.

This being said, we can have sentences that present the general controversy with regard to TM affiliation, but both sides of the controversy should be presented. Ospina review is a notable source that can speak for one side of that controversy. Anderson review is a notable source that can speak for the other side: it has an entire paragraph on this controversy. We also have a discussion related to this controversy in this scientific TV program, which is completely reliable in that context. Again, with regard to this related issue, NPOV is not respected in the Intro because we only have one side of this controversy and both sides are equally prominent. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a consensus, more or less, that there are at least several reviews which meet the strict standards set for medical claims, and that one of those is the Anderson review. But this is a long article and we can't give undue weight to any one review, or even to all reviews, in the intro. If you can suggest something compact and neutral, then my "undue weight" concern would be addressed.   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the linked video, it shares a problem that seems common when TM research is presented. The producers fail to identify Tim Carr and Nick Argyle as being affiliated with the movement.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this acknowledgement:

[No big deal about an affiliation with TM] seems common when TM research is presented.

You are basically saying that most news clips or TV programs, including Catalyst ABC, do not present a TM affiliation when TM research is presented. I would like to add that most peer-reviewed papers on TM research only acknowledge it briefly when there is one to acknowledge and make no big deal about it. There are a few exceptions such as Ospina et al, Krisanaprakornkit et al. and Canter et al. Catalyst is a team of science journalists with an excellent professional structure in place to check and analyse facts. They are obviously aware of a possible bias due to affiliation. Perhaps there was no real affiliation or the importance of this affiliation was too small in comparison with other factors and they did not want to give undue weight to it. The same logic applies to all other reliable sources. Please let us stick to the sources. If the affiliation issue is prominent in Ospina, we mention this issue when we present it. If the affiliation is not an issue in other reliable sources, we don't mention it when we present these sources. We cannot always refer to the POV of some sources (such as Ospina, Krisanaprakornkit et Canter) to discredit or misrepresent other reliable sources. Whether some Wikipedia editors see it as a problem (i.e. opposed to their personal POV) is irrelevant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Catalyst is a team of science journalists with an excellent professional structure in place to check and analyse facts.

Says who?   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. In this case, of course, the science journalists themselves together with ABC technical support is the professional structure in place. It is the job of the science journalists to check and analyse the facts. The credential of the science journalists is provided in their web site. This professional structure is public and people can judge for themselves. Because this professional structure is more transparent, it is in some way (but not in every way) better than a governmental agency with a non standard peer-review process. However, this is a distraction from the main question. My point still hold: we must stick to the sources and I thank you again for indirectly acknowledging that most of them don't give too much weight to a possible corruption of authors, referees and editors by a TM affiliation. Let's continue below. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So Will are you saying that the research section in the lead reflects what is in the article and complies with WP: Lead. I just want to be sure of how much of an impasse we are at here before we go on. (olive (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't think I said anything like that. It's certainly much better than it was back in June 2009.[3]   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that WP:LEAD is not respected and have no intention to suppress Anderson and other sources from the article, your "undue weight" concern should be that many sources in the article are not yet represented (fairly, without bias, etc.) in the Intro. Why is it that your "undue weight" concern seems to go in the opposite direction? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole lead, like the whole article, is a big topic. Let's confine this thread to the summary of scientific findings.

As I wrote above, we devote a certain amount of space to summarizing the best available sources, which happen to be reviews. Anything we add should be in proportion to the existing material. The proposed text is out of proportion, which is why I object to it on "undue" grounds. Could you propose material that is more proportionate with the existing material?   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP: LEAD,"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" If the lead does not reflect what's in the article then how do we remedy that. If anyone thinks it does then we need to discuss that as well and figure out where we as editors meet on common ground. Right now I don't see common ground. I'd like to focus this discussion if possible on these issues and not on anything personal.(olive (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

@Will, I was only referring to the Research part. My point is that Anderson and many other sources in the research section of the article are not represented (fairly, without bias, etc.) in the Intro. So, what do we do about it? If the sources that are already represented take all the space available, perhaps they should use less space so that we can have more space for the other sources. Your "best sources" argument does not hold. Who says they are the "best"? The other sources are reliable sources with excellent peer-review process, etc. They are as good, if not better. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Third and last time:

Could you propose material that is more proportionate with the existing material?   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Anderson paper is summarized by Canters statement ( even though this came out 4 years before ) that "Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM." It is than given due weight in the body of the text. We do not each get our own "science". Science is not relativistic and therefore each "side" does not get equal say as seems to be the request here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no requests here from my side. We must properly write a section of the lead per Wikipedia. Also, we don't take a source and use it as a way to then negate the other sources. If we did that by a process of elimination we could end up with no sources at all. I had hoped we could discuss on some common ground. If not we can go another way.(olive (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

(undent) There was talk of mediation. Has this been requested?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped we could come to some place to begin at least to work on this but looks as if the discussion is another repeat of many before... so yes I filed for mediation.(olive (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

@Doc James, your last point could be interpreted as belonging in category 7 here whereas your argument before that definitively enters in category 4 here. Even if there is mediation, we will have to continue the discussion. The mediator will not discuss in our place. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and the possible influence of large corporations on AHRQ, Cochrane, Anderson, etc.

@Doc James, can you tell me where in the policy the influence of large corporations on studies or on systematic reviews, which are published in peer-review journals, is mentioned? We will use this to discuss the policy in the specific context of Ospina, Anderson and other reliable sources for the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion and TM organisation

In the lead we have the statement "In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization." I am not sure that this is the case. Perhaps others perceived TMM as a religious org. but did the TMM itself present itself as a religious organization? What are the sources to support this statement? Also, do we feel that this sentence is a summary of some section of the article below? --BwB (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi might have mentioned devatas, which the TM organization describes as laws of nature, without presenting a connection with modern science. Nowaday, the TM organization speaks of devatas perhaps even more than in the 1950s, but only as different aspects of the laws of nature as seen in the human physiology and in the universe. I understand that some might feel that the TM organisation is just packaging modern Hinduism to sell it in the form of modern science, but it is not what I see. I see that the TM organisation is packaging modern science to extract from it the consciousness aspect, that is, to make the connection with the different states of consciousness and their physiological correlates. It just uses old terms and names that are interpreted differently in modern Hinduism. Why? Because Maharishi wants that we use the sound quality of these terms and names. Maharishi says that the sound quality is very important and has an effect on the physiology. Note that the different states of consciousness and their physiological correlates can be studied within modern science. Just wanted to make sure that no editor misinterpret sources. If the source is Maharishi, then you cannot make him say that TM is a religion unless he said it explicitly. You cannot make him say anything about Hinduism unless he explicitly used the term Hinduism. I presented my interpretation above, which I believe is close to the TM organisation interpretation. Others might have a different interpretation. The key point is that we must avoid reinterpreting a source in accordance with our POV. We must stick to what the source says.

BTW, we should never have a section with the title "TMM as religious organization", because such a title is by itself presenting a POV. It is better to have a neutral title. Otherwise, we would need another section with the title "TMM as a non religious organisation", so that all POVs are represented. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And do we have a source that says that the "Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization" in the 1950s? --BwB (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the TM org did present itself a religious early on in its history, not as a religion, but religious. Keep in mind that religious and spiritual are often used interchangeably although, they are clearly delineated by some. Check the first source in the article on this topic [4]... You might also like to check the second source)(olive (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

See History of Transcendental Meditation#Overview.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Most likely things are going over there as they are here. So, it is not a useful reference at all. Please, let us focus on what reliable sources say without using our own POV to interpret them. I am sorry if I confused other editors by bringing my own interpretation above. I just wanted to point out that we all have our interpretations, but we have to put it aside and focus on the actual content of reliable sources and make sure that we do not give undue weight to any particular POV. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, do we have a reliable source that says that the "Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization" in the 1950s? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wallis 1984 p. 34.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Defunct_organizations where information formerly in this article about the original posture of the TM Movement as religious was moved. The Maharishi and his followers originally called the TM Movement the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" (it took a few years before the movement settled on "Transcendenal Meditation" as a trade name). Until SIMS was formed in the mid-1960s the only organization authorized to teach TM in the US was the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. Its articles of incorporation stated that its purpose was "religious". Multiple reliable, secondary sources have noted this, including the Federal courts in the Malnak v Yogi case and Olive was kind enough to check the corporate records to confirm that this is correct (saving having to order and pay for a copy from the California Secretary of State) This has been previously discussed at length in the talk archives, among other places, here: Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_24#Spiritual_Regeneration_Foundation Fladrif (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK ! I was just asking for the source. I think this source, the Federal courts, which reports on the mission of the SRM in its incorporation, appears reliable. I was just concern that we go beyond that. It is one thing to say that the TMO presented itself as religious (not a religion) and another thing to interpret Maharishi as teaching about Hinduism, etc. Some authors might have written that, but it is highly controversial, should be clearly attributed to these authors and should not be given undue weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Abortion is highly controversial. Nothing here is highly controversial. Outside of the TM movement, I don't think many people get upset to see TM or MMY associated with Indian religions. Even in India the TM movement is perceived as religious. As far as this article goes, every time it's mentioned it's attributed to the authors. If anything, the issue may not be receiving sufficient weight, based on the number of scholarly sources that discuss the topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is controversial. Yes, the controversy is mainly between TM and a few detractors and not in the general population, but this is why it should not be given undue weight. The religious or spiritual part is not so controversial, but that we packaged Hinduism or Hinduism gods is controversial. The TM technique is not less or more found in Hinduism than it is found in Christianity. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"[T]hat we packaged Hinduism or Hinduism gods". I don't understand what that means. I'm not aware of any observer suggesting that the overall teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his numerous Vedic "technologies", are just as close to Christianity as they are to traditional Indian religions.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fascinating use of the term "we", which I will not comment on, the suggestion that whether or not TM is religious or founded in Hinduism isn't something on the radar of "the general population" and that to raise the issue is a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT misapplies both policies. I don't know what "the general population" thinks about TM; I suspect that they don't think about it much at all, given the collapse of new enrollment some 35 years ago from which the movement has never recovered, although there was and is extensive newspaper coverage of the court cases in New Jersey, and Lynch's initiative to put TM into public schools, which were met with considerable opposition in several communities over precisely that controversy. The point is what do reliable sources say about it, and what is the weight given to the question in reliable sources? As Will points out, there is considerable mention of the controversy in secondary sources, and considerable scholarly work on this issue.

The claim that technique is no more or less founded in Hinduism than in Christianity is unique, to say the least. The Maharishi said:

For training the mind through sound we can take any word. Even the word "mike" can be taken. By reducing the sound of the word "mike" to its subtler and still subtler stages and allowing the mind to go on experiencing all the stages one by one, the mind can be trained to be so sharp as to enter into the subtlest stage of the sound 'mike', transcend ing which it will automatically get into the realm of Sat-Chidanandam and experience it. Thus we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. But we do not select the sound at random, We do not select any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.

The puja ceremony, translated by the Maharishi, says:

To the Lord Narayana, to lotus-born Brahma the Creator, to Vashishtha, to Shakti and his son Parashar, To Vyasa, to Shukadeva, to the great Gaudapada, to Govinda, ruler among the yogis, to his disciple, Shri Shankaracharya, to his disciples Padma Pada and Hasta Malaka And Trotakacharya and Vartika-Kara, to others, to the tradition of our Master, I bow down.

To the abode of the wisdom of the Shrutis, Smritis and Puranas, to the abode of kindness, to the personified glory of the Lord, to Shankara, emancipator of the world, I bow down.

To Shankaracharya the redeemer, hailed as Krishna and Badarayana, to the commentator of the Brahma Sutras, I bow down.

To the glory of the Lord I bow down again and again, at whose door the whole galaxy of gods pray [sic] for perfection day and night.

• * * *

Guru in the glory of Brahma, Guru in the glory of Vishnu, Guru in the glory of the great Lord Shiva, Guru in the glory of the personified transcendental fulness [sic] of Brahman, to Him, to Shri Guru Dev adorned with glory, I bow down.

The Maharishi directed that, after practicing the TM-Sidhi , all initiates must read the Ninth Mandala of the Rig Veda to feed the Soma they had created in their guts to the Vedic gods, particularly Indra. The court in Hendel, holding that the practice of TM-Sidhi was a religion, found that TM-Sidhi practitioners were taught that the TM-Sidhi program "produced soma in our bodies for the gods to drink"; and that the reading of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of Rig Veda as part of the practice "invoked the names of Hindu gods"

Those are some of the things that the courts have cited in holding that TM is a religion. Many scholarly sources, including those very sypathetic to TM have looked to the Maharishi's own statments on the roots of TM and his commentaries on the Vedic texts. Others have looked at alleged Tantric roots to some of the practices of TM. There is a wealth of scholarly material on this. If anyone can come up with a reliable source credibly arguing that the foregoing is from any religious tradition other than Hinduism, they are welcome to add it to the article with appropriate weight and attribution.

Some sources assert that TM is a religion, some assert that it is not. Some sources assert that it is founded in one or another branches of Hinduism, and other sources assert that it is founded in traditions that predate Hinduism. To the extent that the articles presents these points of view, they are reliably sourced and attributed to those sources. Some sources assert that there is no inconsistency or conflict between practicing TM and practicing any religion; others disagree. To the extent that the articles present any of these points of view, they are reliably sourced and attributed. They are not things that the editors here simply made up or are asserting as their POV. Fladrif (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow ! I am writing long replies, but you surpassed me here ! Ok, you have the right to express your opinion and mention the opinions of others as it pleases you. Honestly, I did not read your long reply. However, I did not oppose that we present the diverse opinions of some authors on the subject. I just wanted to make clear that we cannot attribute to Maharishi or to the TMO and not also to Wikipedia the opinion that the TMO is just repackaging Hinduism. The TMO position is that TM is as much behind Christianity as it is behind Hinduism. The TMO uses names and sound that have an interpretation in Hinduism, some as Hinduism gods. This interpretation is the essence of Hinduism as a religion and we don't have this interpretation. In that sense, this connection is superficial. Again, I am sure there are authors with different opinions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"The TMO position is that TM is as much behind Christianity as it is behind Hinduism." Source?

Again, unless this discussion concerns a proposed edit it just seems like chatter.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the basic idea. No, not every thing that we say in the talk page must be directly a statement to be included in the article. It can be something that gives an idea of what could be included and sourced, if we wanted. I thought it was understood that we were discussing the basic idea. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're just exchanging opinions we should find another venue, like a forum. The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article.

That said, I've watched a few TMO videos that depict Ganesha floating by on a chariot, but none that show Jesus Christ. I'll find a link for it, if you like, and you can try to find a link of one showing Christ. Is that a good way of settling this? Or perhaps we can compare the number of references to traditional Indian religions with the number of citations from the Christian or Jewish scriptures? Maybe you can find some recordings of pandits doing Gregorian chants?

Or, better yet, let's just stick with what we find in reliable sources and leave our own analyses for other websites.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I love this quote from Will: "The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article." Can we please make this the mantra for this talk page and apply it equally to all editors who comment in this page? I am happy to have Will remind us ALL of this point again and again and again. Thanks, Will. --BwB (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've probably written almost that exact sentence two dozen times, and sentiments like it another four dozen times, on various Wikipedia talk pages. Yes, repeat it early and often.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be easy to interpret the previous discussion as a personal TM propaganda followed by a personal anti-TM propaganda, but let us not go into this. The fact is that we must discuss the TM position in the talk page so that we have an idea of what could be eventually included and sourced in the article. We must also discuss the other viewpoints for the same reason. Let us just do it without taking side personally (emotively, etc.) as much as possible.

With regard to the pictures of Ganesh, etc., yes, the graphical representations of these devatas in the TMO is also used in Hinduism. This is the same thing as for the name and sound, the connection is only at the sound and graphical level. This can be made clear if we present the book of Raja Ram (Dr Tony Nader, physiologist) where he presents the devatas in the human physiology. It is not that the devata are Hinduism entities independent of the physiology or independent of the laws of nature behind this physiology and that Raja Ram has shown that these Hinduism entities are also in the physiology. It is not that. The TMO only sees the devatas as aspects of the laws of nature in the physiology. The graphical representation used in pictures and videos is suggestive of the actual shape of these devata in the human physiology. This is not at all the Hinduism interpretation of the devata. It is pointless to keep bringing out a connection at the sound or graphical level between TM and Hinduism, when the essence of the Hinduism is in the interpretation of these sounds and images and the TMO has a completely different interpretation. It is worth to mention the graphical connection once, but there is nothing much in this, certainly not a revelation that the TMO is a scam, a religion or a packaging of the Hinduism religion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's one of the most fascinating rationalizations I've ever heard.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I find people arguements have much more weight if they are able to provide references to support them as references are going to be what is needed if content is eventually added to the article page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's curious, I was referring to animations that illustrate songs. One, which I guess is called "Heaven is Descending", appears at the end of many TM videos. For example, at 1:11 of this video:[5] (You can save it or stream it). But I've also seen even more floating deities (or devatas) in other videos. ESL tells us that they suggest the actual shape of things in the human physiology. I'm not an anatomist so I can't comment on that interpretation. To my untrained eye, they look like Krishna, Ganesh, et al.   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminding Will: "The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article." --BwB (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The extensive use of sacred Indian texts and imagery by MMY and his organizations deserves further coverage, but most of that doesn't pertain directly to TM. Perhaps we should gather sources for a "Teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" to cover his theories of the Vedas and Natural Law. That material doesn't seem to fit very well in any of the other articles.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, your wording sacred is not so often used by MMY, but maybe he did in some context. After all you did use it here and you see yourself as scientific and rational. MMY interacts with people of all religions. For example, he might have said to Christians that TM is a strong prayer. I don't know that, but maybe he did. It is the emphasis that we put on these things that concerns me, as if they were important revelations of some hidden scam. Anyway, if I put aside what could be an intention to refer to MMY works, not impartially for what it is, but in terms of a sceptic point of view, I certainly agree that we should present more of MMY works and also of Raja Ram works. However, it is very important that we present it fairly, not only a few sentences there and there only to bring a sceptic point of view. I am not sure that we have yet the required environment to do that successfully. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just quoting the Wikipedia article on Rig Veda, called "Rk Veda" by MMY and described by hims as the "Constitution of the Universe". MMY's philosophy was that, "If our perception, if our comprehension, if our intelligence is refined enough, we find that the first complete expression of the total knowledge found in Veda and the Vedic Literature is found in the first letter of the first syllable of Rk Veda, which is the source of all the other Vedic Literature. The same completeness of knowledge is then found in the entire first syllable, then in the first word, then the first verse of the Rk Veda." The first word of RK Veda appears to be "Agni". I don't know what it all means, but I don't have to understand it to report it. .   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Context-free comment, Trick or Treatment notes TM has more religious associations than other forms of meditation (p. 317). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to say again that I feel it would be nice to present the work of MMY and also of Adhiraj Raja Ram about the Vedic literature, the physiology and the laws of nature behind it. Only, it is important that we do not do it out of context as it is done above. For the time being, I think we should focus on material that is less fundamental and easier to grasp. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Material on their philosophies or views would probably fit best in their biographies. Note that material should be based on secondary, 3rd party sources, and primary sources should be used mostly for illustrative quotes and minor details. I haven't seen any secondary sources for Adhiraj Raja Ram's views of Vedic literature, but there might be some for MMY's.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the policy allows that the work of someone is the subject of interpretation and criticism in a Wikipedia article because of a secondary source and yet it does not allow that we also present this primary source fairly as it is without bias in the same article. However, it does not seem fair at all. Perhaps, we have to be careful about what is a secondary source here. A book about another book can be as much a primary source as the book that it writes about. We'll discuss that later. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a fundamental misunderstanding and misinterpretation of how Wikipedia classifies sources. As you claim to be a new editor, I suggest you carefully read, or re-read, as the case may be:Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Fladrif (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Natural Law Party

TM political party is not mentioned. I just received "Cults and New Religions" in the mail that discusses it in lenght.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

James could you clarify what you mean, or what content you are referring to. (olive (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

The "Transcendental Meditation movement" section could use a re-write. Maybe just dropping in a revised version of the Transcendental Meditation movement intro would be better. The NLP certainly merits at least a line in this article.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is an editor making unilateral changes to this article with out discussion and agreement from other editors? (olive (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

This book is really a good summary of TM Bromley, David G.; Cowan, Douglas E. (2007). Cults and New Religions: A Brief History (Blackwell Brief Histories of Religion). Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 48-71. ISBN 1-4051-6128-0. It will balance certain aspects of the article nicely as it provides a independent analysis of this organization.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is available to view on line. I'm not so much interested in an opinion. We all have them. I'm interested in the fact that you are making unilateral edits with out other editor input. That hasn't been the process here. Why is this acceptable?(olive (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

and again, could you please explain your opening statement on this thread.(olive (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Ah... you're saying the NLP isn't mentioned in this article, but Bromley discusses it. I see. I think. (olive (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

The whole book is not available which is why I ordered it. Yes NLP is not discussed and Bromley discusses it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the NLP generally denied any connection to TM, but Bob Roth admitted that it was the TM party, and virtually all of its candidates were TM practitioners. Its main platform plank was the formation of Yogic Flying groups.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but reliable third party sources directly tie it to TM including Bromley's book. Just emphasis the importance of using independent sources :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your wording is a concern. Could you post the page number here and if the page is not online we should probably see the quote itself. A tie to something does not mean that something created it, as your wording states. The so called TM org did not create anything... A few people did... I just saw another source that said the people of Fairfield created it. So what's correct...at the least your addition should be attributed in the text.

You know the lead has been discussed almost word for word yet you added content with out notice or discussion. While I still have to look at the additions closely and the sources, I do have serious concerns about an editor who disrespects the editors he works with as your editing patterns here do especially after an arbitration where we all have been challenged to work in a more collaborative manner.(olive (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

The connection between TM and the NLP has been made by many writers, so it would be a mistake to attribute it to just one. Obviously, Hagelin, Morris, Paterson, Deans, et al., are not simply random people. I don't see anything about the NLP in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm am asking that the wording James is using be corroborated by the source, and again "connection" is different than "create". According to other content editors have insisted on adding content that suggests everyone who learns TM is the TM org. However all of those people did not vote NLP. That's your TM org.... Now if the the source says NLP was "created" by the TM org that should be attributed because its not what all sources say, and its questionable. If the source says or implies "connection" as do other sources then yes the wording connected can be used without in text attribution. (olive (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

According to other content editors have insisted on adding content that suggests everyone who learns TM is the TM org.

I don't know who said that, but it isn't a reliable source. The issue here is whether the NLP was a significant part of TM's history. Considering how much attention it brought to TM, I'd say that's a reasonable assertion. But let's keep it short.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Will re add my words that were deleted here.[6] Text says "NLP, a party founded on the principles of TM as taught by the Maharishi" Page 48. Than goes on to say "Its political aspirations notwithstandings, since its introduction in the early 1960s TM..." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the relative weight of the NLP to the TM history and the TM movement, I'd be inclined to move it to the "movement" section. The "origins" section doesn't seem quite right for it, and there are probably other historical details of greater importance. OTOH, it was a significant element of the movement. Any objection to moving it?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No moving it is fine. As long as it is mentioned somewhere.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have deleted that when I added a section. Didn't see it. I'm fine with moving it, and I would quote since the comment is somewhat inaccurate syntactically and logically... TM what?...The technique?... not true at all. The technique is a technique... the underlying theories of the technique, yes possibly...the TM movement maybe... what I'm saying is this is an example of using "TM" indiscriminately to mean-who knows what... if we quote the text we remove responsibility for attempting to interpret what the author meant. (olive (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Content added to lead

Content adde to the lead with out discussion: "and is based on Indian philosophy and the teachings of Krishna, the Buddha, and Shankara.[7]"

While this may be accurate, there are multiple ideas, points, considerations about the origins of the TM technique. Adding this content to the opening of the lead as a definitive statement is not an accurate assessment of the sources and the information available, and almost certainly doesn't belong in the opening lines of the article. is there another way of using this content if it is content that is needed.(olive (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Since there is a paragraph on the origins of the technique I've moved the content to be with like content.(olive (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

As it is referenced to an independent third party review of the religious aspects of this movement it can be stated as fact. Do you have other sources of this quality that disagree?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't the issue, and nothing is fact. Its all about sources. The issue is making this definitive when it isn't, and then putting it in the right place. I disagree with your placement... Chryssides also makes this statement so I've added it there. Does that work for you?(olive (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Chrysside? Where? That TM is derived from eastern philosophy is fact among religious scholars.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the "Origins" section. It appears that Boa, Russell, Chryssides, and Bromley all agree, more or less, that the technique is derived from, or has been revived by, Krishna, the Buddha, and Shankara.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thus it seems that we should present it as fact as no independent source seems to disagree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict:

Fact is not established by the source. Verifiable information is established by the sources. I think you may be using the wrong word there. Check the History section for Chyssides, which is where I moved the content. No one is contesting the content, I'm contesting its placement. (olive (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

As I said this isn't about contention, its about placement. 4 authors doesn't make the universe by the way. I would agree that the origins of the technique can be placed in the lead. I disagree that it should be tacked onto the opening sentences. I would prefer a little more content and more appropriate placement.(olive (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

It seems to be universal among the authors who write about the origins of the method. Are there scholars who describe a different origin?   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the content to another paragraph with a little added point. If its not liked, no problem please move it back .... I don't have the time to argue this further.(olive (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Lead: Changes in meaning of article

Recent changes made by Doc James in the lead change the overall meaning and context of the article. This is a massive change to any article and should not be carried out with out equally extensive editor involvement , discussion and agreement. Britannica is a tertiary source and questionable.(olive (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

As discussed previously TM refers to both a technique and a religious movement per the majority of source. I think I quoted the EB and OED last time. Thus we use it in this article to refer to both.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the lines between TMM and TM are beginning to blur here. There were discussion in the past about the main thrust of this article and from these discussions was born the article on the TMM. Undoubtedly, there is a connection between NLP and TM, but perhaps the bulk of the text on NLP, TM as religious organization, etc. would be best placed in the TMM article and let this article focus more on the TM technique. I know we have had this debate before, but on reading thru the article again today, and trying to look at it from a "new" reader's respective, I think there could be confusion in the readers mind. Perhaps we could all think together how best to tackle this. --BwB (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The are multiple sources that do not refer to the TM technique as a religious movement. I don't think we have to go there. The TM movement article was split off as a possible antidote to an article that was becoming increasingly bogged down in content that was only peripherally related the technique itself. It doesn't seem to make sense to once again begin adding remotely related content to this article. This would give us two articles with pretty much the same content. Although I didn't agree with the split, there was consensus for the split. Consensus is not binding over time of course, and can give way to another consensus.(olive (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

On this sort of article Wikipedia uses terminology as it is used by the general population per reliable sources not how terminology is used by a small specialist population.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please link me to the "extensive" discussion that indicates this change to the lead has agreement. If you can't, revert. You are making up your own rules. Or perhaps you can cite the policy or guideline that says this "On this sort of article Wikipedia uses terminology as it is used by the general population per reliable sources not how terminology is used by a small specialist population". This has nothing to do with a "small specialist population". You are changing the meaning of an article with out discussion and further you reverted a good faith attempt to compromise on that change. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "small specialist population".(olive (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I'd like to see the "extensive discussion" on your change. I certainly missed it. Is another encyclopedia a reliable source? (olive (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Editors routinely make significant additions to articles without prior discussion.[7]

If this is another dispute over whether this article is over the technique or something more then perhaps the best solution would be to move it to "Transcendental Meditation technique". That'd make the scope of very clear.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard here since the arbitration and been to discuss and then add with discussion. Doc James changed that yesterday with unilateral edits. The change he made today changes the scope of the article.That is a serious edit. That isn't fine with me since he did it with out other editor input, and reverted my attempt to use his idea but not to change the article. Moreover he claims discussion took place when it didn't. That's not fine with me either. Finally I am not Kbob so its no use using an example of his editing to insinuate that I should consider what Doc did was fine... Its not. This is about the TM technique article except there is no more TM technique article anymore. Doc changed it. That's not fine either. This change needs to be discussed. I don't agree to changing the scope of the article. Do you?(olive (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't see that standard being followed. Just today, Keithbob added a large amount of material to the MMY bio. We've asked before if editors here wanted to make that a standard, but there's never been agreement.

We've certainly discussed the "technique vs. movement" issue before. I'll go check the archives.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard was being followed here at least until Doc's edits of yesterday. Since Doc has changed that and you seemed to agree, I guess the new standard will be add whatever you want. There was never a discussion and especially consensus that discussed making a change to the opening sentence of the lead so this article would become about TM movement. A discussion about TM and TM movement is a very different issue. I'm sorry Doc couldn't reply for himself. (olive (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't see any sign of that standard, and I don't see you complaining about Kbob's far more significant edits to MMY. Maybe there's more than one standard? I'm sure Doc will respond too.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There've been countless discussions that touch on the issue of "technique vs. movement". Here's a recent one:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 32#Another good source

Here's one from last year:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#TM and TM technique

Let's try to avoid discussing the same points over and over.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I'm saying. The edits Doc made change the scope of the article. Is that OK with you and the other editors. Was there consensus for that. I didn't see Kbob's edits and at this point they're not what I'm dealing with. Is he changing the scope of the MMY article? Since this discussion is going the way of ignore the real questions and throw out a red herring or two, I'll leave you to it. (olive (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

How has the scope changed? It is true that the phrase "Transcendental Meditation" is used to refer to both a technique and a movement. That has been the case since before Wikipedia began.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I edit boldly and will continue. What I have added is referenced to the EB. I presented this before here. Many other references can be found for this usage. This article should contain and deal with both.

I agree if people wish to discuss the technique in lenght it can be summarized here and further discussion can take place in a sub article. BTW TM is used primarily to refer to the religious movement in scholarly texts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then wondering why Will felt the need to create the TMM article if this article was going to continue to be the catch-all for TM as a technique and TM as an organization. Maybe Will can comment on this. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub articles are often created when content goes past what a single article can hold. Look at the page on Obesity for example and you will see dozens of sub articles dealing with specific aspects in greater detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The topic of TM as a religion is very interesting. We touch on it in many different section but a full discussion probably needs a section of its own. Bromley "Most scholarly assessments warrant that TM displays mixed qualities of therapy and religion."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article had a religion section which was integrated into the article...Creating another religion section would mean dismantling parts of the article and moving that content back into the new section. This is a big change. It needs editor consensus.(olive (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

There is a religion section. Transcendental_Meditation#Religion.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh ... I thought we'd discussed moving it and integrating it, and actually did it.... Bromley's comments can be added there then. We should consider WP: Weight though(olive (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

On what this technique is based is of prime significance and thus belongs in the lead. Should be in both places really thus restored it to the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

James, that's just an opinion. There are other editors here. Why is your opinion worth more than their's? Moreover you refuse to even discuss but revert unilaterally to your content based on that opinion. I'm afraid I don't understand you're editing style given the circumstances and events surrounding these pages.(olive (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

A short reference to the origins of the technique seems appropriate for the lead, especially since we have a whole section devoted to it.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

and thank you both... It actually felt like some collaboration went on there...Perish the thought.. :o)(olive (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Onward and eastward.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That phrase has copyrights!! --BwB (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Broomley ref in the lead should be presented as fact unless we have equally good literature that disagrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion and agreement requested from all editors for recent addition to Lead

Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to both a spiritual movement and specifically to the form of mantra meditation practiced by this movement. They were introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).

References

Discussion

• There was no consensus for this addition.
• The sources, 9,10, are tertiary and non compliant.
• This is not an honest description of spiritual movement.

You are in effect hiding information in the linked, "spiritual movement" suggesting that TM in the opening line of the lead is a religion. That TM is a religion is a contentious point that has been explored later in the article. In the lead placed as it is, as a definitive point, this is a POV and a violation of NPOV.

• I wil remind Doc James that all editors here are bound under the TM Arb Com and agressisvely ignoring other editors while adding what constitutes POV content, does not jive with the arbitration. Nor is this the wild west.
• If all editors agree that this content is fine then the content is fine in my mind.
• This needs to be discussed and agreed upon by all of the editors here.(olive (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Consensus isn't required for additions. Tertiary sources are allowed. See WP:PSTS. I've removed the link to "religion" - perhaps we can find a better link, but in the meantime we can leave it unlinked.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "spiritual movement":

• Setting aside speculation that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's spiritual movement may lose steam after his death, his followers say that it will only grow stronger and has in place a well-knit system of kingship.
  • Maharishi's movement will only grow stronger, say devotees. The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Feb 14, 2008.
• He brought his spiritual movement to the West in 1959 and in 1968 the Beatles went to India to meditate with him.
  • Beatles' Maharishi passes to other side. ED HARRIS. Evening Standard. London (UK): Feb 6, 2008. pg. 26
• But the most famous teacher of them all was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who took his Transcendental Meditation world tour on the road in 1958 and set in train a spiritual movement that at the height of its fame was to sweep up some of the most famous people in the world, among them The Beatles, Mike Love of The Beach Boys, Donovan, Mia Farrow and later the comedian Andy Kaufman.
  • the ultimatestressbuster; [1ST Edition] The Independent. London (UK): Oct 10, 2007. pg. 20

Et cetera. There are clearly multiple sources to support calling TM a "spiritual movement".

I have reworded the opening sentence of the lede today, with the emphasis being on the TM technique. I did not see this discussion on the talk page before making the edits. Sorry if caused confusion. --BwB (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "spiritual" and "religious" in many peoples mind. --BwB (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of sorry BWB made this change since we are in the middle of discussion, but then Will made changes as well so I guess we just go with what we have.

We have sources that define TM as a spiritual movement. We have sources that defineTM as religious. TM is fundamentally a technique. We have an article to dump in anything that refers to movement. We have a pretty robust section on the religion debate. This article is about the fundamental technique. The wording must indicate that. If we want to say the TM refers to the technique and the movement fine but it can't be given the kind of weight that will change the focus of the article so that it becomes another TM movement article. This is the TM technique article. There is no agreement to change that focus.(76.76.228.132 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC))(olive (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Sorry... didn't realize my automatic login wasn't automatic today.(olive (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

This why I changed the first sentence to begin with TM technique. As I said above, I changed the article text BEFORE reading the talk page. I am happy to continue discussion here. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the "Transcendental Meditation". The first thing the article should do is define that term. It applies to both a spiritual movement and a meditation technique. It's logical to do that at the outset, not wait until the end of a long article. In and of itself, it doesn't change the scope of the article which has always been "Transcendental Meditation".   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been about the technique, as the opening line stated, "The Transcendental Meditation or TM technique is a form of mantra meditation..." adding "and to the spiritual movement that teaches it" redefines the article, as does leaving out the word technique. I don't agree to changing the scope of this article to include TM "movement" content, and potentially expanding the scope of the article beyond technique. We have an article that does that. We don't need another one. I don't agree to the wording that opens the door for indiscriminate adding of content that may only peripherally refer to the technique, and I especially don't agree to any of the above based on the edits of one or two editors. Adding content that as I said changes the potential scope of an article , whose scope has been stable for a long time requires discussion and input, so let's give editors time to think about it and check in on the issue.(olive (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

We have sources that say TM is a spiritual movement. Until we move this article to "Transcendental Meditation technique" it will need to cover both topics. "Transcendental Meditation movement" was split off as a sub article, but that doesn't mean the parent article should ignore its existence.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another TM movement article is redundant. I'll take it to mediation.(olive (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Another? No one has suggested writing a third article. I'm not sure what you're talking about. This seems like a lot of turmoil over sourced material that no one says is wrong.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The article used to have this information in the lead:

• The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM, is a form of meditation that was introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, an Indian spiritual teacher. It has become a worldwide movement, with over six million people having learned the technique. [8]
• Transcendental Meditation is an ancient form of meditation which has its foundation in Hinduism. Transcendental Meditation is commonly referred to as TM, which is also an organization that promotes a widely recognized meditation technique which was developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Guru Dev. [9]
• Transcendental Meditation or TM is a trademarked form of meditation developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. It is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, which claims Transcendental Meditation is reminiscent of and possibly derived from Hindu tantric practices. [10]
• Transcendental Meditation is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. [11]

I'm not sure why it was removed, but the current version seems like an improvement.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy deleted the movement from the lead here:[12] He issued a legal threat over the matter on the talk page.[13] Hopefully there won't be any legal threats this time.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to focus on this lead and rewriting it rather than what would seem to be red herrings. TG made the edit with the express permission of an editor editing at the extreme other end of the spectrum from himself. Your edit implies there was no agreement for his edit. You are really assuming a legal threat and not assuming a comment about the nature of the issue, that is, that the use of the name is a legal issue rather than one editors generally can deal with? And should we dig through archives looking for, out of the multiple incarnations of the lead, versions that support each of our positions.

To start: In the writing of this lead we must make it clear immediately that this article is about the technique, and what the name of the technique is.

Transcendental Meditation or the Transcendental Mediation technique (TM technique) is a specific form of mantra mediation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008)..

Is there any disagreement for using this specific information?

I'm not familiar with the legal aspects of using the accurate name, so can't really comment on that aspect.(olive (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I though that the reason to have the TMM article was to focus on the organization teaching TM and related techniques, programs, etc., and this article would have the focus on the TM technique. There is substantial amount of text in the TMM article about it's cult, religions, spiritual nature. Why do we now have to repeat all that stuff in this article? The TMM lead contain the following text -

"The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect, and characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "Sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millenialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the main stream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10]" --BwB (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Doc would like to present his rationale for his edit to the first sentence of the lead and how he sees the relationship of this article to the TMM article, since it was his edit that seems to have stated this debate. --BwB (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the writing of this lead we must make it clear immediately that this article is about the technique,

"Must?" According to whom? Dogmatic assertions like this don't make editing easier and promote a contentious atmosphere. Let's aim for "Consensus building" and avoid "Feuds and quarrels". If we "must" do anything in the lead, it's to define the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". Is Olive asserting that "Transcendental Meditation" is not used to refer to a spiritual movement?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Will ... that's not what I meant ... I was talking in a generalized "we" as in a more technical way.. that is, that the content of the article per WP:Lead needs to be explained immediately:

The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic...

I've been asking for discussion and agreement from the beginning of this discussion so I think we can move on with out talking about feuds and quarrels.

I outlined above an opening sentence for the lead and asked if you agree with it. If you don't, would mind writing something you do agree with. (olive (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

The current text, as edited by Bwb, is:

• Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to the specific form of mantra meditation[1] and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.

Olive's proposed text seems to be omitting something. Maybe as a compromise, we could have something like:

• Transcendental Meditation or TM refers to a mantra meditation technique introduced in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.

The dates of the Maharishi's life seem irrelevant to the intro, and referring to India puts too much attention on one country, which is illogical since it's an international phenomenon.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Omitting something? This is a first sentence. I am establishing what the article is about. I am referencing the stable version of the article in which the article was about the TM technique. What am I omitting in the opening sentence?

Your version describes the scope of the article as, about a technique, and, the movement. It doesn't specify the official trademarked name of the technique. That's a concern for me. We have an article that describes the movement, do we need another one?

What is the primary subject matter of this article? This question needs to be addressed probably, before we can go on.(olive (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

I would say it is the TM technique. --BwB (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the article is "Transcendental Meditation", including all of its aspects. Full descriptions of some aspects have been split off into daughter articles. The purpose of the lead sentence is to define the topic, not to set the scope of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact no that isn't the topic of the article. You split off TM movement as the mother article and took step to make sure it was regarded as such. Is TM movement now a daughter article. TM movement was meant to include all of the aspects according to you. A radical change in the scope of this article is a serious issue. I see once again this discussion is going around in circles. I'd like to get outside input, (formal mediation) because of the contention and size of the change being suggested.(olive (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

I think this concern is based on a mis-perception of how daughter or sub-articles work. Let's say we have a biography of Woodrow Wilson. Eventually, the material on his presidency grows so large that it is split off into a daughter article. "Presidency of Woodrow Wilson". The original article still has the same scope and topic as before, but now instead of a complete discussion of the presidency it has a short summary with a link to the daughter article. It would still mention in the lead that Wilson was president.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

TM movement is not a sub article. It became the master article to which you linked or connected all of the other TM related articles. I hope you're not denying that. Now... we don't need another TM movement article we need a TM technique article which this one was until an editor changed that focus with out consensus... and yes as far as I'm concerned ... that kind of huge shift requires consensus because it will affect the entire article. If we can't come to some agreement I do think we need outside help.(olive (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(undent) I added qualification to the term clarifying how it is used out in the real world. Thus an improvement to Wikipedia. We do not need consensus to make these changes. We at Wikipedia do not get to determine work meaning but are to reflect the meaning of terms as found in high quality sources. If you feel that outside help is needed you are more than welcome to try one of the notice boards or other dispute mechanisms and I will be happy to comment further there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"How it is used in the real world... and improvement to Wikipedia"? What policy or guideline are you citing? We aren't talking about sources here we are talking about the scope of an article. Why do you think you have the right to change the scope of this article after multiple editors with multiple views have agreed to have this article be on certain information. (olive (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Where was there a consensus to exclude mention of the movement from the lead? Looking through the talk page archives, this seems to be a perennial topic. Only a certain group of editors have ever disagreed to it, but they've done that routinely and vociferously. Over and over it's been added and then deleted. If folks want to keep fighting over this, that's fine, but let's not act like there was a sacred consensus that has been violated.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You mischaracterize. We are discussing the opening lines of the lead, not the lead as a whole, and I/we are discussing the scope of the article that changes as any writer knows when you adjust the opening sentence. Discussion of the lead as a whole was never under discussion except perhaps by you. And please keep your comments about other editors whomever you are referring to out of the discussion. Certainly we can deal with this here, now. (olive (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

My edit is below which placed TM movement in the first paragraph, and which includes TM movement while not changing the focus of the article. [14]. This was an attempt to create a compromise with both you and Jmh649 which was ignored. Does this suggest to you that I was trying to exclude TM movement from the lead?(olive (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Is there anyone "here, now" who disputes that the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used by sources to refer to a movement?   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to discuss the scope of this article. Can we stay focused on that please. My feeling is that this article's primary focus in the TM technique and the TMM article focuses on the organization that teaches TM and related programs. We are not arguing whether or not the media refers to the organization that teaches the TM technique as "TM", but this article's primary focus is the technique, and this needs to be clearly established in the opening sentence of the lead. --BwB (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't how this thread started. Olive complained about using tertiary sources, the link to religion, etc. I think those issues have been addressed. If editors want to start a discussion about limiting the scope of this article to only the technique then we should start a fresh thread for that. However I don't think there's much chance of getting a consensus to artificially censor neutral, well-sourced material from the article, so long as it is relevant to the topic of "Transcendental Meditation".   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested can see very well what the last two threads are about...let me reiterate. Changes were made in the syntax which change the scope of this article. "Technique" was used in the opening line to clearly delineate "technique" from "movement" We have now also a "movement" article. Use of technique in the opening lines has been a stable aspect of the article and defines the article. So far there is no agreement on how to include technique and movement. I will post another version later. Others could as well. Hopefully we can come to some agreement.(olive (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Thus article discusses both the movement and the technique and it should continue to do so. The lead was just edited to reflect the rest of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a version of the lead that gives emphasis to "technique" as most of the article refers to the technique. Content that did not was moved into the TM movement article, and do we need another TM movement article? Any thoughts on this version posted below?(olive (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific form of mantra meditation called the Transcendental Meditation technique movement introduced and developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes. Transcendental Meditation may also refer to the Transcendental Mediation movement, the organization responsible for teaching the technique."

I think what we have now is much better but you could try a RFC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an aversion to the word "movement"? Some editors here have spent the last three years fighting against its inclusion in this article.

Olive's proposal is much less complete that the existing text, and ignores the sources. What sources would Olive propose to support her proposed text? Is the sole function of the TM movement to teach TM? Does it not include other goods and services, etc?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well interestingly enough I did use the phrase TM movement in my edit to the article but when I mentioned this earlier it was ignored.[15] Lets add that in shall we. Does that satisfy? And I didn't add the sources for this part of the discussion. I think its clear we had the sources in place for this content.

I did remove "India", and information about the Maharishi per Will's suggestion.

What is the objection to removing Transcendental Meditation and/ or TM technique? Could someone explain? Its a bit if a mystery.((olive (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

The current text is:

• Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific form of mantra meditation[1] and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.[2][3] They were introduced in India in 1955[4][5][6] by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).[7] The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.[8][9]

That seems accurate and succinct. I'd get rid of "is used to refer to" and replace it with "refers to", but otherwise it's OK.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Order: TMM before TM technique?

Doc has reordered the sequence of topics in the article, putting TMM before the TM technique. I disagree with this move now while we are still discussing the overall scope of the article. This move puts the TMM before the TM technique. Even in logical historical terms, the technique came before the TMM. Maharishi was teaching the technique before the event that spurred the creation of the SRM. I want to change the order to Lead, History, Technique, Movement, but thought to bring it to the talk pages first, since there is ongoing discussion of the scope. If the primary focus of the article is about the technique (my opinion), then the "Movement" section would come after the "Technique" section. It seems Doc is of another opinion and has acted on that opinion. --BwB (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The movement and the technique are inseparable. One has to join the movement to learn the technique. Thus the movement should be discussed first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No Doc...Where do you get your information...One doesn't join a movement to practice the technique. And no they aren't inseparable. Research, as one obvious example, is not on an organization, its on a technique. I will continue commenting above(olive (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

You mean the TM technique is not copyrighted and one can learn it independent of the movement?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing up a lot of terms. I own a Mac computer. The name is copyrighted. I don't belong to the Mac organization. Ownership of the computer like ownership of the technique do not mean I have joined some kind of organization. I can learn how to operate the Mac from a person who has specialist knowledge on how to operate the computer properly. I can learn the technique from someone who has specialist knowledge in teaching the technique. In neither case do I join anything. So no... TM technique and TM movement are not the same thing.(olive (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Argument from metaphor? So far as I can tell, no one belongs to the "Mac organization". I searched and can't find any references to such a thing. As for Apple Computer Inc., I don't see much resemblance to the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Gilpin reports that the movement officials call meditators "Citizens of the Age of Enlightenment". Other sources say:

• Today, the movement has around four million members who practice it globally,...
• ...the movement, which claims more than five million practitioners in 130 countries today.
• ...the movement which has some five million followers worldwide, according to its web site.
• ...by the late '60s, his movement boasted a million members ...
• He was the head a movement with five million followers worldwide, all seeking a higher consciousness through transcendental meditation.
• ...where he had set up the headquarters of a movement that is said to have six million followers worldwide.
• The Transcendental Meditation movement claims six million practitioners worldwide, and centres in more than 100 countries.
• Maharishi, now believed to be 90, still directs the movement, which claims more than 6 million adherents,...
• Last July Maharishi brought 2,000 people from all over the world to his Dutch compound to mark 50 years since he began teaching transcendental meditation, a movement that claims 6 million practitioners since it was introduced.
• The movement now has more than 4 million practitioners, half here and half overseas, said Enloe Willingham, the director of community relations for Heavenly Mountain.
• Started four decades ago, the Transcendental Movement says it has five million members and about 1,000 teaching institutions.
• The maharishi is the originator of the transcendental meditation movement, which has more than 4 million followers worldwide.
• Since then, the TM movement claims millions of converts.
• The movement claims three million members worldwide, a million of them in the United States.

How many sources do we have that say TM practitioners are not part of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which source says you "join" the movement when you learn the technique. I'm not sure what your point is. TM the technique is not the same as the TM movement. A technique is not an organization. That's just logic. (olive (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

With all due respect to your "logic", we're here to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, not to apply our own logical conclusions. These sources indicate that the TM movement includes meditators. So yes, when you pay your fee and undergo your initiation you become a member of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If you wish to propose changes please provide source. We have the EB that supports the usage of TM as a spiritual organization. Do we have reliable sources saying TM is not an organization?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation filed on opening paragraph of lead

Jmh649 agreed to be part of a mediation. Anyone else who wishes to be part of the mediation would be most welcome. Please add your names. [16](olive (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Isn't Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation 2 about the lead too? I don't see any point in having two separate mediations for the same block of text. Could you explain?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Different part of the lead, very different issues. I've left it up to the mediator or whoever accepts to either combine them or to view then separately.(olive (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Formal mediation is for issues that are unresolved after previous efforts have failed. It's not the first place to go. I suggest an RfC or informal mediation instead.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Problem text

This text is a little over the top and cannot be presented as fact "A sign of cosmic consciousness is "ever present wakefulness" that is present even during sleep.[118] Research on individuals experiencing cosmic consciousness as a result of practice of TM has found EEG profiles, muscle tone measurements, and REM indicators that suggest there is physiological evidence of this higher state.[119][118]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

• [118] Walsh R, Shapiro SL (2006). "The meeting of meditative disciplines and Western psychology: a mutually enriching dialogue". The American Psychologist. 61 (3): 227–39. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.227. PMID 16594839. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• [119] Shapiro, Shauna L.; Walsh, Roger; Britton, Willoughby B. (2003). "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions" (PDF). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research. 3: 69–90.

While these authors are independent of the movement, and the journals seem at least minimally reliable, these assertions seem to go beyond normal scientific inquiry. The views should be attributed.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving further material

I have split up much of the material. Anything else which should be moved? BTW a bot will come around and fix most of the refs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

James. I suggest you stop. You are making massive changes in articles it has taken others years to create, in the first days of an RfC and with two mediations possible and in the instance of splitting off an article expressly opposite to what was being discussed. You are, as well as others here are bound by the recent arbitration. You do not WP:OWN these articles. There are other editors active on these articles and the changes you are making should have their input. Will do you support these unilateral changes. I f you don't perhaps you ought to say so rather than editing into the changes.(olive (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

You and Hordaland suggested the split. I just made a few simple edits to create it. Will referenced the summary. It looks like we are making excellent progress. Hordaland suggested we shorten this to a semi disambig which seems like a great idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No James we didn't.(olive (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Lets give others time to comment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, no existing text has been deleted or even altered significantly. It's just been moved around. The TM article was overlong, and there have been expressions in favor of an article focused on the technique. This seems like a logical split. I don't see any better proposals being offered. I think that editors who've made more edits to this article than all but one person should be careful about accusing others of ownership, as that charge may apply more to them.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Will, your comment, very simply put, misrepresents what went on here. There was no agreement for Doc's extensive changes, and yes there was another proposal suggested by the outside editor.(olive (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC))

I could well be mistaken. It's happened on occasion. ;) Do you have a better suggestion for reducing the length of the TM article?   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So I moved around some of the text to fit the titles best, and to group together like-topics. The "theoretical" stuff, is here, combined from a few articles. The old intro is split between the TM and TMT articles. Anyway, we've now got a "technique" article, which is what some folks wanted, and the overlong "Transcendental Meditation" article is brought back down to a readable length. Nothing has been deleted, and many improvements have been made. It's a work in progress, like always.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was there a discussion here about the length of the TM article and consensus that it needed to be shortened? I did not see that discussion. I do not support the edits that Doc James has recently made to create the split of articles. --BwB (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The ideal size of Wikipedia articles has been discussed extensively over the years. At one time, the technical limits of browsers required that we keep articles under 32k. That limit no longer exists, so now we're using the limit of reader's interest, etc. The upper limit mentioned at WP:LENGTH is 10,000, and this article was about 9200 words.

Further, editors have been asking for an article focused on just the technique. The only legitimate way of getting that is with an article titled "TM technique", so the options were to split the article or to rename it. Since renaming it would not have dealt with the size problem, and would have caused other problems, this seems like the better solution.

Are there any specific problems that can be addressed by editing?   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the division of TM into TM movement and TM practice have social precedence, or are these categories superimposed for Wikipedia-related reasons? If the latter is the case, then readers might be confused, and believe that the former is truly the case. I think this confusion can be circumambulated in our edits. makeswell (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The movement distinguishes between the theory and practice of TM, a division that's reflected in the split between "Transcendental Meditation" and "Transcendental Meditation technique". Members of the movement refer to "the movement" or the "TM organization", as well as to specific elements of the movement. Outside observers routinely recognize the existence of a movement.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear - I did not support the split of the article and there was no discussion or attempt to create consensus of this major change to the TM article. --BwB (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific problems?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific problems? How about the fact that this is ridiculous: THREE articles on the exact same same topic? It makes no sense and was done out of the blue. This is very poor form, to say the least--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting merging all of the TM-related articles? I don't think they are the exact same topic. We've had one editor here say something to the effect that "a technique can't be a movement/religion/cult". The articles are about 3700, 6200, and 6000 words long. If we combined them we'd have an article with something like 18,000 words. Encyclopedia articles should not be books, in and of themselves. There is still plenty more to say about the general topic.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that this was inappropriate and uncalled for. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In the listing above I forgot the fourth spin-off article, History of Transcendental Meditation, which is currently about 3000 words but will doubtless grow to twice that before it's completed. 21,000 words is halfway to a novel. Anyway, I don't remember if you supported any of those spin-offs. Would you prefer it if we wrote less about TM?   Will Beback  talk  16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Will, I believe you were the creator and major author of both the TMM and the History of TM articles. --BwB (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Wikipedia is based on reasoned argument. Please provide content based justification for your disapproval. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rearrangement of text

I must say these changes have made things much clearer and more compliant with WP:NPOV. Both the technique and the movement are given the equal weight they deserve.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You made these changes yourself despite other editor input except yours and Will's, and you ignored the RfC and misrepresented it as did Will despite the fact he had started it. Now you are saying NPOV has been served? Who are you trying to convince? You and Will highjacked these articles and that's not right or acceptable.(olive (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

Nobody's hijacking nothing. ("Take me to Havana Fairfield.") It's just what was wanted; a special article on the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's all good.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead (or lede)

The lead has at the moment 5 paragraphs. IMO the first and last of these are sufficient. The three in the middle are way too detailed to belong in the lead. --Hordaland (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(Someday, sensible people may spell it "leed").

You're right. there are a few rough edges to improve. Let me see if I can move some of that to better articles, like TMT, and improve what remains. It needs a summary of the theoretical material, too.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is an improvement.[17]   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation; Technique or Movement?

It seems to to me that the central issue is whether the term "Transcendental Meditation" refers to a meditation technique, an organization/movement or both. It has always been my understanding that it referred to a meditation technique. Today I did some research on the web to see how it is defined by online dictionaries etc. I have posted my results here [18] on a newly created subpage of this talk page. I encourage others to also post their findings so we can have comprehensive overview of how the term is defined by reliable secondary sources. Once the definition is clear than it will help us to decide what the article of the same name should contain in terms of content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that encyclopaedia and dictionaries are not secondary sources, but tertiary sources. There is no unique criteria to determine the most common usage of a term, but definitively we should include newspapers, TV programs and other independent secondary sources. Some might want to include websites and books written by detractors of alternative medicine and related organisations, but they should be seen for what they are. I am curious to see what the result will be. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the technique, as we've discussed often here and as editors have frequently attested by their edits, is "the Transcendental Meditation technique". The movement has many names, both for the individual entities and the overall whole. There are also aspects of TM that are neither the technique and nor the movement either, like SCI.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SCI is a course taught by the TM movement. It can go under the umbrella of courses taught by the TMM. --BwB (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TM is also a course taught by the TM movement. But SCI is more than just a course - it's the intellectual framework for TM and MMY's philosophy. If we had an article like "TM theory" or "Philosophy of MMY" then it'd go there. Until then, this seems like the best place for the theoretical issues.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This same set of issues have been previously discussed at great length. The talk archives show that this exercise is an unnecessary duplication and rehashing of issues long-settled. The current structure of a relatively short disambiguation article on TM, with separate articles on the technique, movement, history...and the numerous other articles on other aspects of the movement, its leaders and organization which are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles is completely consonant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and are extensively sourced. Complaining about how the various articles got created is a non-starter. Voting is not how issues get resolved. Counting Ghits for TM technique vs TM movement is not how issues get resolved. I do not see a single substantive suggestion as to what anyone thinks is wrong with the articles or how those complaining propose to cure their inchoate objections. Fladrif (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proposal to rename this article? I don't understand the point of this exercise.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, regarding your statement that the official name is "Transcendental Meditation Technique", the issue is not about "Transcendental Meditation Technique", but about "Transcendental Meditation." We should care about what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation". If the most common usage is the technique, then they should see the article about the technique, which has a link to the article about the Transcendental Meditation Organisation.

However, there can be a compromise. One possibility is to give more room to the technique in the Transcendental Meditation article. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would simply provide more details. The main product of the Transcendental Meditation organisation is the technique. It is the product for which it is best known for. It makes no sense to have so little about it in the Transcendental Meditation article. Doc James wrote that he suspected a desire to hide the Transcendental Meditation Movement. How presenting the main product of the movement could be hiding anything about it? It seems to me that it does the opposite: it sheds light on what the organisation really is. Perhaps some people want to hide something important about this organisation when they try to hide the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY calls on Wikipedia editors to split articles when they become too long. The phrase "TM" covers many issues: a technique, a movement, the history of both, the intellectual framework, etc. Editors here repeatedly sought to change the lead from "TM is" to "The TM technique is". So now there is an article specifically for the TM technique.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Transcendental Meditation Technique" is better, but "Transcendental Meditation" still mainly refers to the technique, much less to the organisation, as KeithBob has shown by looking at common usage on the Internet. This is a point that must be considered in the future, whatever we decide to do. A large article is fine unless it creates problem with a browser. I do not think there was any problem. However, I can see the point of having a central article on Transcendental Meditation that would respect what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation", which is mainly the technique, but also the organisation. This central article would then refer to the Transcendental Meditation Technique article for even more details about the technique and to other articles as well as needed. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would clearly identify itself as a continuation of the Transcendental Meditation article, which is the parent article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While I guess the next thing to do would be to create a request for comment and see if outside editors agrees with your interpretation. I personally see KB list as just a specific selection of sites to support his POV. One could come up with a long list the other way. Google give 165,000 for the movement and 232,000 for the technique. Hardly a big difference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're compiling sources, keep in mind that all of the sources that refer to TM as a religion, cult, or sect are implicitly referring to it as a movement, not a technique. That's one of the reasons for having separate articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Doc James is confused about the issue. We are not asking what content should be associated with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" or "Transcendental Meditation Technique" because this is clear. So, a Google count on these two terms is not helpful. We need to decide what should be associated with the term "Transcendental Meditation". Therefore we want to know what is the most common usage of this term. If the most common usage of "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique, the corresponding article should be mainly about the technique. In the same line of thoughts, I don't understand the purpose of the section Sources_that_have_used_Transcendental_Meditation_within_three_words_of_terms_like_movement_group_etc_since_2008. It does not help to determine what is expected when one searches for "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those entries would be found by searching for "Transcendental Meditation". We have no easy way of determining what readers expect to find.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a fairly logical arrangement: cover the technique in "TM technique", the movement in "TM movement", and the history in "TM history", and everything else in "TM".   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we have located here the point about which we need outside help: what is a good and neutral way to determine what people expect to find when they search "Transcendental Meditation"? With regard to your suggestion, I think to the contrary that people that search for TM are expecting to find out about the technique and to some degree about the movement, not about "every thing else". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If they want to learn about the technique then they can follow that link, and if they are interested in the movement then there's a link for that too. If editors insist, as they have in the past, that we have an article that starts "The TM technique is" then it makes sense for that article to be titled "TM technique". That's how the RFC started and why we're here.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us be clear about what we want. Do we want that "Transcendental Meditation" goes to a disambiguation page or to a primary topic [19]? A disambiguation page is not the best option, but if we go for it, then let us do it right and have a clean simple ordinary disambiguation page. Otherwise, let us have a primary topic that makes sense for "Transcendental Meditation". It was suggested that this topic is an Introduction to Transcendental Meditation, which makes sense to me. However, I don't think that the content of such an Introduction should be every thing else beside the technique, the movement, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Things were settled before the split. TM primary article mainly focused on TM technique, another article on TMM covering the organization teaching TM technique and related programs, etc. --BwB (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and there was no problem with the length of the article. Nobody pointed out a browser that had problem with it. Nevertheless, having "Transcendental Meditation" points to an Introduction article about TM is not a bad idea, as long as this Introduction article respects the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". "Transcendental Meditation" is normally used to mean the technique, so the article should mainly be about the technique. It also makes perfect sense to discuss the movement in this introduction article because the technique can only be thought by certified TM teachers, which is not a negligible point, and thus the TM technique is not a concept that is independent from the TM organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Sirius Lee (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith, it sounds like you'd be satisfied if the technique section in this article were longer. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) TM is associated with both terms as is amply shown beyond any doubt. Thus the reason for splitting off the section on the technique. Yes we known that TMers wish to portray TM as a technique which is scientifically validated. I have added refs to this effect. However the rest of the world users a broader definition and has their doubts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty that we have is that you decide alone what the the world think. The only thing that I and others want is to have a chance to determine honestly using reliable sources what the world think. For example, to determine what is the common use of the term "Transcendental Meditation", we want to refer to how this term is used in encyclopedia and other reliable sources, not only take your words or the words of Fladrif or Will Beback. BTW, there is no need to separate any one from the "rest of the world". If you do that, it will be helpful that do that to yourself because you seem to think that the entire world think like you do. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

:-) Do you remember the ref to the EB I provided? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith seems to be taking the position that we can use other sources as a clear indicator of what is the most common usage. I regret to say that I have very serious doubts that we would be able to use sources like encyclopediae, for instance, because they will often themselves have a clear predisposition to one usage or the other. So, for instance, I think an encyclopedia of religions would give primary importance to the TM religion/movement, while an encyclopedia of yoga or similar exercises would probably give "first place" to the TM technique. If that is true, which I believe likely, then what we would probably really be doing would be determining whether there are more religion or yoga encyclopediae, etc., because they would probably break down as indicated here, and I think I can speak from experience that there are more of the former than the latter. Any individual is of course free to do whatever they want, including referencing these sources, but based on what I have seen this sort of short dab page is probably the best way to go. I say that because this seems to have been the decision reached after extensive previous discussion of this issue and it seems, at least to me, unlikely that things have changed significantly since then. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, John. Unfortunately, the "decision" to create the split did not come from "extensive previous discussion", but rather from one editors action. --BwB (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed the "TM is a techique" issue for over a year, IIRC, and there were discussions even before I got involved.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's, BWB, and John's comment: Two issues here are being conflated that should probably be untangled. There have been multiple discussions since before I came here too, on how to define the words TM, and how best to create articles on TM given the way the words are used in the sources. Eventually two primary articles were used to encompass content; technique and what is associated with the technique - a somewhat subjective discrimination, and everything else that is labelled in the sources as TM movement. (There are multiple other articles that are associated with TM technique/organization.) I assume Will is referring to those discussions. BWB is referring to a unilateral split or fork depending on how you look at it, that was carried out despite editor objections, on the second day of an RfC, and despite a suggestion by an outside editor that would have possibly solved the problem out lined in the RfC. Unilateral editing during an RfC especially on the second day is apt to create a contentious situation, as it has.

This thread was begun to deal with the split, and to see if there was any common ground that would allow all editors to deal with the split, and if not to ask for outside help, as in a mediation. Side angles have entered the conversation as to why the split was appropriate or not in terms of content considerations. One of those discussions has brought up again the terms TM movement and TM technique since some editors may see that defining those terms satisfactorily for everyone could solve the problems with the split.(apologies Edith for placing this here. Hope its OK. it made sense to follow the appropriate comments with this post rather than later on. (olive (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

@John Carter: Also, this is not my personal position. The first to have used an encyclopaedic is Doc James, then KeithBob got inspired and looked into other encyclopaedia and dictionaries. I myself, pointed out that they are tertiary sources and proposed that we extend to secondary sources. You are right that different sources might have different uses of "Transcendantal Meditation", but what else do we have to evaluate the most common use of an ambiguous term. I propose that we see what the picture is, while taking into account the orientation of the different sources. It is better than only using what we personally think the world think. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)