Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The Lead

Will has done a nice job creating a basic article. One point of attention is that so far we have just a primary source for the lead. Everyone knows how important secondary sources are especially for the lead. I know the article is just hours old and there will be lots of initial adjustment but please keep your eyes open for a secondary source(s).-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The intro for an article like this should be about four paragraphs long.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, nice job Will.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice job on the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead

To explain the changes:

-Maharishi developed the programs but many were not created or founded by him. In some case he apparently revived ancient programs or techniques.

-I thought both programs and orgs would be more inclusive and more accurate since there are programs such as the TM technique program but also organizations such as MVEDC

-Many of these programs are not connected to the TM technique. For example the rejuvination program is a kind of spa program which non TM meditators use without any knowledge of TM.

- changed date consistent with source, and with use in rest of article.

To repeat a comment I made on another talk page, we should avoid using the construction "is a term used to describe", using instead the word "is", something more like "The Transcendental Meditation movement is composed of programs and organizations..." Regarding the 1957 founding, that is the date which appeared in many obituaries for the Maharishi.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever date we use should be consistent within the article, I would think. My change also reflected the source we are using in that paragraph....(olive (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

And thanks for putting this article together....good work.(olive (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

I appreciate Will's encouragement not to circumlocute (Did I coin a new verb?) the article name, but the article does deserve a more accurate beginning. I made some changes to the first sentence to make it more precise. The question of a date needs to be sourced. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical Acceptance

Is this a possible secondary source that could be used to show acceptance by the medical community of Transcendental Meditation? http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/hypertension_stroke/JohnsHopkinsHealthAlertsHypertensionStroke_3159-1.html#read --Uncreated (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That would belong in Transcendental Meditation, which covers the meditation technique. This article covers the associated organizations.   Will Beback  talk 

opps...my bad...I got confused as to where I was...of course it should go in the TM article.--Uncreated (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control issues"

I don't believe any of the sources in that section use the phrase "Control issues". I believe that phrase was suggested in Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Remove Tags, but I don't see any discussion or consensus for it. That material was previously titled "Cult issues". Unless someone can show that that "Control issues" is really the isue discussed in the cited sources, I'm going to restore the previous heading. Suggestions for alternate headings would also be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA says to avoid the use of "cult." Putting it in a subhead draws attention to the word and is prejudicial, whereas putting it in the article itself offers the opportunity for context and attribution. Maybe we could use "The nature of the movement" or something like that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA is sometimes misunderstood. Let me quote the actual text of the relevant section:

Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Peoples Temple is a cult."
• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
• "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

• "The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"
• "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."
• "Pedophilia is a paraphilia."

So it's OK to say that the Peoples Temple has been described as a cult. We should avoid saying "The Peoples Temple is a cult." Likewise here. "Cult allegations" is another option. We could use "nature of the movement" as a super-heading instead of "Reception". Do we have sources on other aspects of the nature of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there was consensus not to use the word 'cult' in the heading. However the term 'control issues' is a poor substitute and could be improved on.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus. If the material talks about cult allegations then that is a logical heading. Euphemisms should be avoided.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control issues" is an absurd euphemism. "Cult Allegations " would be both accurate and neutral.Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have the right title for the so called cult section yet, and should go back to the proverbial drawing board. I'm including some comments by a couple of scholars on the usage and idea of the word cult.

Chryssides: [6]

The use of the word 'cult' which is characteristically employed by anti-cultists carries pejorative connotations, as is evidenced by the consistency with which the NRMs themselves take exception to the term. New religious movements are dubbed by their opponents as 'cultic', or, more specifically, as 'destructive cults'.

The fact that they are 'free standing' and hence lack a specific religious identity helps the anti-cult movement claim that because their goals are unclear they are possibly sinister

As things stand, academics and anti-cultists alike are inclined to bend or ignore their professed definitions almost at will to suit their own purposes

Timothy Miller : Introduction pg.1-2 [7]

They [sect and cult] are largely avoided in this book as they generally have been by scholars for several years because in popular use they have become largely pejorative. "Cult" today typically means a group that the speaker does not like, considers potentially harmful and wants to deprecate.

My point in posting these quotes is that the word "cult" is heavily non neutral and leans to the pejorative. We need another word for the heading. Possibly the bigger problem is that the section on cults is a highly biased slice of the much larger and increasingly well studied area called among other things alternative movements, or New Religious movements. (olive (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

NPOV calls on us to include all significant points of view, regardless of whether they are postive or negative, so long as they are well-sourced. While some scholars prefer "NRM", others prefer "cult". The current material we have in this section concerns cult allegations. The Chryssides paper concerns whether TM, among others, is a NRM. Perhaps we should have a separate section for "NRM allegations". BUt I don't think we should use a meaningless euphemisims like "Control issues". I'm open to something better than "Cult allegations" , but I don't see any suggestions for improvements so I'll make that change. If something better comes up we can either change the heading or create an additional section to cover it.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. (Chryssides ' paper is on definition rather than on TM. TM is only one of many examples). The issue here isn't whether to not include the cult content . The issue is that in using a pejorative term for the section heading we create tone and slant the section. That is not neutral, is not NPOV. The heading must be worded so that all views of what to call or to describe TM come into play. I could define for example behaviour in Border Collies as good or bad . The issue is behaviour so a heading using the neutral term behaviour can include both good and bad dog behaviours. If I were to just name the section bad dog behaviours then I am limited to including only bad dog behaviour and comments refuting those descriptions but I cannot include good dog behaviours. The section on cult is a biased section because the heading is specific to one reading of the organization, the negative and any refuting of that kind of reading, but is not neutral enough to allow all sides. Its a violation of NPOV. The heading needs to be fixed as does the section. I'll think about it. (olive (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

The material in the section is not close to comprehensive - there are many more scholars and other reliable sources we can cite on various aspects of membership in the TM movement. The section heading doesn't limit the material, except in that section. There do appear to be enough cult allegations to populate a section. We can add as many sections as are needed to cover other aspects.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that you have readded the old title in the middle of a discussion when there is a fair amount disagreement on its use. (olive (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

It's not the old title, which was "Cult issues". I don't see any consensus for the change to "Control issues", so the "old title", or something like it" is a reasonable usage until one or more bnetter headings are found.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quibbling so I'll back away . Chem Prof had suggested the title "Control Issues" and after a fairly long period of time when no one commented or objected he move it into the article. I'm not happy with it either. This needs some thought though and a quick title change one way or the other isn't going to do it. (olive (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm open to suggestions.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, we may bnot need a heading here at all, since there is already the "Reception" heading. I'm going to delete "Cult allegations". That way we can keep adding material on schoalrlyt and other views of the TMM without concern over whether they contain cult allegations or not. Once the material is closer to being complete we can see what headings make sense.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good solution for now, Will Beback. As olive said, there are multiple reasons for not using the word cult in a heading. We discussed it at length before, and I suggested the alternative title for starters. No one disagreed, and I put it in. I agree that this whole section now under "Reception" needs to fill in a bit more and then will need to be considered for subdivisions. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems several editors (including me) had issues with both titles: 1)Cult Issues and 2) Control Issues, so I think this new title "Reception" is a good compromise.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for thinking this thru together. I also do not like 1)Cult Issues and 2) Control Issues, but we do need to come up with a title that reflects the sources. I think Will's compromise is very good for now. --BwB (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Natural Law party

Political parties by law must be independent entities. However, the NLP had many candidates who were closely associated with TM and TM was part of its party platform. Even so I'm not sure we can consider it part of the TM Movement. At present there are not any sources for this section. I think this is one section where we would want to see some secondary sources saying that this political party was part of the TM movement otherwise it needs to be removed I think. Yes?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of sources tie the NLP to the TM Movement and MMY.

• The TM movement is also a political movement striving to achieve an "enlightened" populace, and under the banner of the Natural Law Party puts forward parliamentary candidates in Britain.

• Not content with providing the individual with a panoply of Vedic tools for mere self-transformation, in 1992 Maharishi helped create a full-fledged political entity called the Natural Law Party, which aims to achieve world transformation.

• Bob Roth, a spokesman at the Natural Law Party headquarters in Iowa, said it has been no secret that the party is connected with the TM movement. ``There has been extensive coverage about TM and the party. It's no secret this is the TM party.''

• The TM movement founded...political parties in many countries around the world known as the Natural Law Party.

• With this in mind, in the 1990s the TM movement formed the Natural Law Party, which fielded candidates in Britain, the US, Canada and Australia. The party sought to combine politics and TM on a platform based on the appealing, if unlikely, promise of low taxes for all and the complete elimination of disease, crime and pollution. The party launched its campaign in Britain with a full-page advertisement of its manifesto in The Times beside another full page portraying 119 of its candidates. Despite printing 12 million copies of their manifesto, advertising on radio, TV and 7,000 billboards and having the backing of George Harrison, the candidates had little success. In December 2000 the Natural Law Party was disbanded, amid jokes about the failure of yogic flyers to win over floating voters. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also found dozens of newspaper sources that connect the NLP to the TMM. Here are a few:

• Maharishi Vedic Universities and the Natural Law Party are arms of the Transcendental Meditation Movement.
• It is also unfortunate that our election laws make it possible for a group such as the Transcendental Meditation movement to run a nation-wide promotion for itself partly at taxpayer expense through the Natural Law party.
• Most of the 13 candidates for the area around Ottawa live in a housing complex in Orlans, where they meditate together. Some are yogic flyers, and some work full time for the Transcendental Meditation movement. [..] "We have tried to make proposals to the government, but they haven't listened to us, so we thought . . . let us form a political party," says Paterson, party leader and Governor-General of the Age of Enlightenment for North America, who is running in Ottawa Centre. [..] The party's 44-page election brochure even includes an advertisement for videotaped courses on Natural Law and the "Maharishi Effect," although there is no reference to their prices ($15-$60). Throughout the brochure, claims are made to the scientific validity of the party's beliefs, although the scientists are connected to the TM movement.
• The Natural Law party, 231 candidates. Leader: Neil Paterson. The party is closely tied to the transcendental meditation movement and argues that a group of 7,000 people practicing "yogic flying" could decrease stress in society and result in huge savings for governments.
• After years of minimal growth the TM organization went political and became the Natural Law Party.
• ompkins said the Natural Law Party approaches politics as a cooperative venture, not a confrontational process. The party, formed April 20, is based at Fairfield, Iowa, the home of Maharishi University. More than half of the founders, Tompkins said, were connected with the Transcendental Meditation movement.
• The new Natural Law Party, made up of adherents to the transcendental meditation movement or TM, has submitted petitions to qualify candidates for two Missouri congressional seats - here and in Kansas City.

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the citations listed above do not make a direct connection between NLP and TMM however, enough of them do that I am willing to accept it as a valid topic for the TMM article. Thanks for the references.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Maharishi Vedic Science programs section

I really appreciate the collaborative manner so far. Thank you thank you. The section titled "Maharishi Vedic Science programs" section doesn't quite seem parallel with the other sections, which are specific organizations. Maybe we could have a section heading that says Maharishi Ayurveda organizations, and then under that have subheads for the Lancaster Ayurveda Spa, The Raj Ayurveda Spa, and Maharishi Ayurveda Products International, for example. All of these have received national and regional news coverage. And instead of the Maharishi Sthapatya Veda heading, we could have Maharishi Global Construction (which has also been covered in major media). Eager to know what everyone thinks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had been thinking that the article could use a section on "Programs" or "Main teachings" to allow for short sections on TM and TM-Sidhi. If some of the ones you list would fit under there then that would take care of them. I don't know about listing every spa and Peace Palace, but we can try. If any section gets too long we can split it off into a subsidiary article.   Will Beback  talk  15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current section title is kind of limiting. Maybe it could be called something like Maharishi's Programs or ??. Then TM, Purusha and other items could go under this heading. I think the Spas and MAPI should be listed under Maharishi Ayurveda since they all have the word Ayurveda in them. Doesn't that make sense? If that section gets big we could consider moving it later.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Maharishi's" is needed, but otherwise that sounds like a workable plan.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support this direction. --BwB (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'll gather a few bits of information about the spas. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding overall organization, maybe specific topics could be under the organizations that offer them. For example, TM and TM-Sidhi could be under MVED. Peace Palaces under Global Country. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the entire TM movement, the spas seem fairly minor so I don't think we'd want to add too much about them to this article.

As for organization, I don't see why we'd put TM, which was a founding concept of the movement, under MVED, which is a US company founded long after TM was conceived. I think that conceptual programs like TM and TM-Sidhi would be better treated in a section of their own rather than based on corporate entity.   Will Beback  talk  15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual we should go by the sources. Certainly TM and TM-Sidhi have had lots of media coverage and deserve some real estate in the article and if the spas have lots of sources then they should get their due weight.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that TM-Sidhi and spas belong in the same section. I think "Maharishi Ayurveda" is a better heading for spas and the vedic medical treatments, with "Programs" used for TM, TM-Sidhi, and similar teachings.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've organized that section a little ... does that make more sense.(olive (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why spas would be considered a "theoretical aspect". The things listed in that section don't seem "theoretical" at all.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-organized the sections a bit further.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your organization doesn't quite work... MVS has two aspects, one practical, and one, theoretical applications to life. The techniques are one arm, the practical aspects, the theoretical aspect the other arm. These are two subsets of the kinds of programs available. Programs may be the wrong word though. They need to be under a heading that show this .... (the spas are part of Ayur Veda and Ayur Veda is under the application or theoretical aspect of the programs . Spas in this case are medicinal rather than resorts or something like that).(olive (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

The descriptions I saw on one spa site make it appear pretty much like any spa, offering massages, herbal treatments, gourmet health food, etc. I don't see how that can be considered a theoretical program. Maybe "businesses" would be a better heading to include the spas.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The spas whether businesses or not are based on and supply Ayur Veda services.... MDs charge as well and medicine is big business but they are medicine based. and like any service, the service costs, so money is charged.(olive (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

But medical treatments aren't theory. Are the spas referred to as medical providers?   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

These definitions, theory, for example are how the organization defines its programs, not how we would define them.... Practical and theoretical are "arms" according to the TM organization... Ayur Veda as self defined, is the health/medicinal aspect of the theoretical arm....and as is traditional in Ayur Veda, the treatments which we here call spa treatments are integral to the treatments... spa is a word that's hanging up this discussion I think....The same treatments if offered free would still be the same treatments... They do requite expertise and facilities so money is charged, otherwise who trains and pays the the technicians who give the treatments for example. A hospital provides services but they are also big business.(olive (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I've removed "practical" and "theoretical", since they seem to be original research.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I'd agree that hospitals are businesses too.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll see if I can find a better explanation and source for MVS...(olive (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added new wording that's sourced. This is a "self published" source, but it probably is the best place to go for an accurate description of what the TM organization means by the term MVS. See what you think. I reorganized the section to reflect the change in the description.(olive (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I think the use of "applications" is good... nice.(olive (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Definitely better that "theoretical aspects".   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The word 'spa' doesn't properly reflect the medical and overall health benefits claimed for Maharishi Ayurveda treatments such as panchakarma and pulse analysis. But we're stuck with it because that's what they're called.

I think the spas should be described in a new article TM Programs and this TMM article should describe the actual movement, mostly from a historical perspective (starting with MMY leaving India, support from the Olsons, founding of SRM, training teachers, accepting flowers from followers, MMY's Movement as a landing pad for hippies and others looking for alternatives to a boring life, 1972: launching of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) and the World Plan for the Age of Enlightenment, TM-Sidhi Program, the Maharishi Effect, the Global Country of World Peace, Rajas, the Raam, etc.) Just my two cents. David spector (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Law document as source

Is this an acceptable source per WP:Primary for content in the section "Purusha and Mother Divine".(olive (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[8]

This source doesn't seem to reference any info on the lines it is sourcing. Not sure why it's there...(olive (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cited the original source on the article since this ref sees to be to a blog (as an aside to avoid confusion.)...and just noting this source in the article i've just added seems not to be the same article that I removed found on the blog so will check this out later today.(olive (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)) [9]

Update: The ref above seems to not be available in the Watuaga Democrat archives, and a quick look seems to indicate its not available elsewhere except on blogs, non reliable sources. I replaced it with a ref on somewhat the same topic from the Democrat. I am still unclear as to why this ref is there at al. Perhaps it should be removed.(olive (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Olive the link you have put in as a substitute is from the same date and the same newspaper, but it is a different article and it does not mention anything about the section topic. Kaplan: Residents told to vacate-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I say that above. Sorry f its hard to understand ...That's why the concern has been brought here. The 2nd source was used to ref the physical location of the programs. I didn't find the other source in any other place but will check the Democrat archives. (olive (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

If we have a reliable source writing about the TM movement then we should keep it. However it may be better handled in a different section. The "Watauga Democrat" has online archives back to at least 2002.[10] Regarding the court documents, I recall that appeals court decisions are considered secondary sources. They are very different from the various documents filed in lower courts and provide a reliable overview of the legal dispute.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not the original ref which is fine. Its that the ref is on a blog and so far we can't find the original source. Still looking.(olive (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

An interesting discussion on court documents here.

Will could you point to a place that says appeals court decisions are secondary sources. Since we've had several discussions on law cases, the information would probably be really helpful.(olive (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I found this thread: [11] I believe there have been others as well, though i cna't find them now. What reasons would there be to view an appeals court decision as an unreliable source?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the decision of the NC Court of Appeals, First of all, this is a decision of an appellate court, not a mere "court document". Second, it is published, by an independent publisher, West, as opposed to unpublished decisions or orders that are merely public documents in a government file. Third, it does indeed support the material in the article, in that it describes not only the location of the Purusha and Mother Divine program, but also what they entail in a fair amount of detail.

As for the article, it is a reliable, verifiable source. It is a convenience to readers to link to an online version of it, notwithstanding that the online versions can only be found in blogs. It is completely inapproprite for you to remove the reference. We can discuss whether you have a legitimate question with the link, but there is no basis to argue with the reference itself. As for its purpose, it provides support for the relocation of these programs from Boone NC. There may be other information in the source that should be added to the article. Fladrif (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the original article is available on the newspaper's website. [12] [13] The use of "convenience links" to copies hard-to-find articles has been discussed extensively over the years. I believe the comminuty consensus is that we should not link to copyright violations, which would include full copies of newspapers articles. However it's entirely permissible to cite the article without linking to the hosting website.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Its tricky connecting to a blog since content can be changed and not noted, unless the original document can be located for comparison. Since we now have the original source then we we can readd. My question concerning law documents was a very real question which I had hoped to have clarified per Wikipedia policies and guidelines since I personally had never run across any such information within those policies and guidelines Thanks for adding information on the subject.(olive (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Question concerning Olson book as source

• Maharishi at 433, Helena Olson, R R Donnelly and Sons, 1979, p178 and p245

I'll ask about this here, since we're discussing sources. None of the catalogs I've looked in list a publisher for this book. [14][15][16] Where they would list the publisher they instead say "[s.n.]". According to whom was this published by RR Donnelley & Sons Company? They are mostly known as printers, not publishers. Olson's later book, "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - A Living Saint for the New Millennium", appears to have been self-published. Unless we can determine that "Maharishi at 433" was published by a reliable source we should probably not use it.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi at 433 was only printed by R.R. Donnelly and Sons and so it appears to be self published. I will remove it as a source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Trademark license

• The terms "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization. These trademarks have been sub-licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED), an American non-profit organization which offers the Transcendental Meditation technique and related courses in the U.S.A.

Do we know who holds the ownership to the trademarks, the entity that is licensiing them to the MVEDC? The United States Patent and Trademark Office has this info:

• Owner
  • (REGISTRANT) WORLD PLAN EXECUTIVE COUNCIL-UNITED STATES NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 17310 SUNSET BLVD. PACIFIC PALISADES CALIFORNIA 90272
  • (LAST LISTED OWNER) MAHARISHI FOUNDATION, LTD. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF UNITED KINGDOM P.O. BOX 652 ST. HELIER JERSEY JE4 8YZ CHANNEL ISLANDS

This page [17] makes it appear that MAHARISHI FOUNDATION, LTD. has been assigned trademarks held by a number of Maharishi-related entities. Is there any other information on this matter?   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One point to note is that many of the assignments were made to MF by the now defunct WPEC. Just an observation from looking at your citation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not just the WPEC. It appears that many entities conveyed their trademarks to the MF, which seems to now be the ultimate owner of all of them. If I understand correctly, the MVEDC sublicenses those trademarks to subsidiary entities in the U.S., and similar arrangements are made in other countries.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At risk

At risk in this context defines any child in multiple kinds of school programs possible who are facing high levels of stress and what that stress can create for the child and the school...kids that are "stressed out". The term doesn't refer to alternative school systems as Wikipedia defines the term(olive (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

OK. I'll de-link the term in the DLF article too, from where this was copied.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Followers?

A sentence has been added that Maharishi has 4 mil "followers". Can someone define what a "follower" is? --BwB (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the material. I have no idea what the writer meant, but it's a reliable source. It's relevant to this article because movements are usually made up of people. I presume those 4 million followers comprise the movement   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More generally, this article should have a section on what we might call followers, practitioners, or movement members. To the extent that there are sources available, the section should have information on the size, demographics, international scope, and level of involvement. Let's start compiling sources and adding material towards that end.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we consider Joe Schmo who learns TM anywhere in the world to automatically be a "follower" of Maharishi? Perhaps "followers of Maharishi" would be better suited in the Wiki article on Maharishi? --BwB (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't consider anything. We verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Do you think that the Mahrishi's followers are not part of the TM movement? That seems like an unlikely conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, reporters often use the word "followers" when simply referring to those who have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique and continue to practice it. This is a probably a poor definition of "followers" and can be misleading. Many who learn and continue to practice the technique have little if any contact with teachers or educational material after their instruction. Is it reasonable to call such people "followers?" My feeling is it's not reasonable, and that we need to be cautious when using this term just because it may well have been used by a reporter or writer in this loose manner. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of extrapolating. Leaders have followers.

• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a well-known spiritual leader and the founder of Transcendental Meditation technique."[18]
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Hindu religious leader who introduced the practice of transcendental meditation (TM) to the West."[19]
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Spiritual Leader, Dies. [..] The Maharishi’s movement began losing followers the late 1970s, as people were put off by the organization’s promotion of a more advanced form of TM called Yogic Flying, in which practitioners try to summon a surge of energy to physically lift themselves off the ground. [..] In the last years of his life he rarely met with anyone, even his ministers, face-to-face, preferring to speak with followers almost exclusively by closed-circuit television."[20]
• "He established his headquarters in Switzerland (moving to Amsterdam in 1990) and at its height the movement had more than two million followers worldwide, including 90,000 in the UK. His followers either paid a subscription or tithed part of their earnings, and as a result the society became rich, with the Maharishi running his own helicopter."[21]
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a spiritual guru hailing from India, is the founder and leader of the renowned spiritual movement of Transcendental Meditation (TM)."[22]
• "In the 1960s he attracted many followers including the Beatles who went to meditate with him in India in 1968. [..] Last week a Maharishi spokesman said the guru had announced he was stepping down as leader of the TM movement, which has some five million followers worldwide, and retreating into silence. 'I can only say: Live long the world in peace, happiness, prosperity and freedom from suffering,' the spiritual leader said in his last message, according to his followers."[23]

And so on. I don't know what definition these reporters are using for "leader" and "follower", but the assertion that he was a leader with millions of followers doesn't seem remarkable.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Will. Many people who do TM may not consider themselves to be followers but if its a term used by the media in a significant way than its legitimate as a term in the article when properly referenced.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess my point must sound like nitpicking to you two, but the point is significant. Will said "Leaders have followers." True enough. But in reality, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a teacher who gave out both practical and theoretical knowledge. He discouraged individuals from considering him as a spiritual leader to be followed. He did not want uncritical acceptance of anything he said. The problem inherent in this concept of leaders and followers is that it subtly suggests that followers are not critically thinking individuals, that they accept the leader's words without question. This is a significant distortion of the situation that actually exists for most of those who learn the technique. This distortion is one that was and is made by many reporters and others who have not been students of Maharishi. Do we want to be responsible for propagating this poor representation or do we want to take the material to a more realistic level of understanding? It may be hard to find common mainstream sources that take this tack, but it is not hard to find academic articles that do. Are these our only options? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV calls on us to report all significant views. If there are sources that say the Maharishi is not a leader and has no followers then we can add that view too.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding usage of the term follower, most mainstream media coverage doesn't refer to people who practice Transcendental Mediation as followers. Usually it just says that they practice Transcendental Meditation. There are literally thousands of articles that talk about people practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique without calling them followers. Also consider the hundreds of studies on TM and the extensive media coverage of this research. The people who participated in these studies are never referred to as followers. When the term follower is used, it's often in the context of referring to the people who worked directly for Maharishi. If we use the term follower, I think we need to be very cautious how we use it. Certainly its occasionally used to refer to anyone who practices TM, but more often it's not used.

And while we're discussing people who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique, maybe we should add a list of people who've publicly talked about their practice. They are many many famous people who could be sourced. In recent weeks, for example, that includes Candy Crowley and Russell Brand. Also, mentioning these two makes me realize that in the vast majority of cases where people self-identify as practicing Transcendental Meditation they don't self-identify as being a follower of Maharishi. Of course now that he's dead, it will be even less likely that people who learn Transcendental Meditation will self-identify as a follower. (To tell you the truth, I've never thought of myself as a follower of him, and all that implies.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AS I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, we should have a section devoted to followers, practitioners, or movement members, or whatever name is used. Probably also sections on the structure and finances of the movement, if we can find sources.   Will Beback  talk  15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Practitioners might be the best and most accurate term for the heading. Because we have a leader who teaches a technique, we can't necessarily say all those who use the technique accept the teacher as a leader. Really, all we can say is that those who learn the technique from a teacher are practicing what the teacher teaches. The technique isn't a belief system that requires acceptance of anything except how to do the technique. Practitioner, also, is perhaps more inclusive so maybe a better choice for that reason. Two cents. (olive (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't think it's our decision to make. We should use whichever terms the sources use, and if one predominates then we might use that for the heading. Maharishi's role in the movement is more than teacher. If I understand correctly, he made administrative decisions as well. While terms vary for the followers/students/practitioners, Maharishi is widely described as a leader, not just a teacher.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points. I would summarize them by saying 1) Not all people who practice TM or take TMM courses etc consider themselves to be followers. 2)At the same time we do find that sometimes the media uses the term follower and in some instances where the source uses the term it may be appropriate to use the term follower in the article. 3)There are many sources (Timid says most) that use other terms like practitioner etc., in particular the research studies, so we should consider using those terms as well. 4) Whatever term the majority of the media uses we should use for a section title.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if we are going to use the term "follower," it should be more clearly defined. There may be some justification to calling the administrators of programs that Maharishi devised or inspired "followers." But as Timid points out, this is not the most common way those who simply learn and practice the technique are labeled. I have no quarrel with appropriate use of the term, but I do not think a few examples from the popular press constitutes enough of a reason to abandon this more accurate understanding. And if we are going to use multiple designations such as followers, TM practitioners, students of Maharishi, students of Transcendental Meditation, etc., then why not exert some effort to clarify the difference in these designations? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for "this more accurate understanding"? If we have sources for the definitions then I think that would be useful information. We shouldn't make up definitions on our own.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Will look for sources. ChemistryProf (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't found a source so far. I'm sure they exist, but how to find them...? One friend relayed the story that a reporter once asked Maharishi how many followers he had, and he said, "I don't have followers... Meditators follow their own progress..." This is the general attitude of most people I know who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique, but it certainly has not been widely perceived by the press. I'll keep looking. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes, 4 January

Will has split the "Reception" section into 3 and renamed the sub-sections. A few comments:

• "Members" is not the correct attribute to someone who learns TM. They are not become "members" of anything by learning TM. Yes the media sometimes incorrectly refer to people who do TM as "followers", "disciples", "members", etc., but his a mischaracterization. I have changes the name pending further discussion.
• We have the reappearance of "Cult" in the title of one of the sections. How do other feel about this? --BwB (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Size" or "Size of the movement" might be similar terms for the section for the time being. "Numbers involved in TM" is ambiguous. "Numbers" of what? It's still under construction, as I'm sure many more sources are available. As we discussed above, the popular choice for what to call those numbers will probably appear as more sources are added.

The material in the last section it's clearly about whether or not the TMM is a cult. This is not a WP:WTA situation since we're not saying that it is a cult. But as an interim measure I'd be willing to go with something vague, like "Nature of the movement" or "Sociological characterizations", until we bring this article closer to completion.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We can consider it a work in progress. I am OK with "Size of Movement" for now. --BwB (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Critics who say it's religion not science

Some critics say that the TM Movement is really a religion, but that it disclaims its religious roots, and instead claims to be a science, in order to get government funding. You can agree or disagree with the criticism, but to take out the word "religious" from a description of the critics' position is hardly consistent with the source.Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The source, [24], does discuss the religion angle.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif that the position that the TM movement is religious (held not only by some intelligent critics but also by others who just misunderstand the nature of TM) must be included in the article. However, the article must also not state that TM or the TM movement are religious. See the difference? Unlike Methodists or Scientologists, those who enjoy TM or those who 'followed' Maharishi never viewed TM as religious. WP articles must be balanced, and not make "outside-oriented" claims such as 'The Peoples Temple is a cult' or 'Transcendental Meditation is a religion'. David spector (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandits

I reading TM sources I keep coming across discussions of the Indian Pandits. It's not exactly clear what they do - recite passages from the Vedas? Practice TM-Sidhi? Which article should we add them to?   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that say exactly what the pandits do, except to describe their activities as Vedic. i would think the best place for content on them is here in TM movement since they are a project that has been embraced by the Movement as a whole.(olive (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

The primary sources I've seen say that they are part of the Invincible America program. [25] They don't seem to be directly related to any of the existing TM related articles from wath I can see so maybe best as Olive says to have a mention of them here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good place to put info on them. We might also add some section sometime about the activities of the TMM in India and then we could expand the info on the Vedic Pundits. --BwB (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any secondary sources for this stuff? I haven't seen any.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they appear in sources that discuss their housing in Iowa and, IIRC, their visas as well. I don't recall seeing any secondary sources on the pandits still in India. A good process with writing material is to assemble sources first. Since there's no rush about this I suggest we post relevant citations here and then summarize them for the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if The Iowa Source is an independent and reliable source. But there's this:

• Maharishi Vedic Pandits Arrive: Increased Numbers Will Help Fulfill Maharishi's Goal of Invincibility for America [26]

It reads a bit like a press release, but it's a start.   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some mention of the Vedic Pandits in the Jyotish and Yagyas section of the MVAH Article - they are the ones who perform the yagyas prescribed by the jyotish practitioners. Some other secondary sources that aren't press releases:

• AP Article at Fox News[27]
• Larry King Interview of the Maharishi[28]
• Total Heart Health[29]
• Another AP article in Cedar Rapids Gazette [30]
• Guru of Joy (tale of a yagya gone awry apparently...)[31]Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good plan to assemble secondary sources to start.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guru of Joy reference is about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, not MMY. David spector (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Summarize the College of Natural Law section?

• The TM movement's national offices and the College of Natural Law were located in Washington D.C., near the Washington Convention Center, from 1981 to 1987. The movement and its affiliates also had a private school, a clinic, teaching and group meditation centers there. Near the end of this period, the Maharishi advised TM practitioners to leave the city to "save yourself from the criminal atmosphere". Robert M. Oates Jr., then the director of public affairs at Maharishi University of Management, said that "People were given to understand it is like living near Chernobyl" because of "the incredible rate of violence". As a result, 20 to 40 TM practitioners put their homes up for sale in an effort to move away from the city.[90]

Any thoughts on the above text form the Defunct Org's section? It seems to me that it could be condensed. Do we need this kind of anecdotal copy in an encyclopedic article? Maybe we could remove the last two sentences. Comments?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you just expand the material that you're now asking to condense?[32] Anecdotes are another word for history. We leave the CNL material under Defunct orgs and move the rest to the history section.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes ironically, I did expand it for balance and accuracy. But now that it's balanced and accurate I am proposing that it be simplified. I think all of the defunct organizations could and should be merged into the History section. The above paragraph should also be in the History section once it is properly summarized.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all part of the history of the movement. If it takes this much text to make a balance treatment then so be it. I don't see the problem with having it in the current location. A wholesale merger of the defunct organizations into the history section would be problematic because some of those sections have significant information that is not well-suited to history. Perhaps the founding, dissolutions, and other key events should go into the history while keeping the bulk in the organizations section.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason to cherry pick the so called "founding" for the History section. They are all history. Also, the movement didn't start the day SRMF was incorporated. It was one event along the way just like all the other organizations. Why do you want to give special emphasis to this one event?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. I had meant that, for the defunct organizations, we could better integrate them into the history section by adding the key dates of their histories there. For example, the dates of the founding and dissolution of the CNL. However I think that organizations which now have standalone sections should not be moved into the history section in their entirety because details of their organization structure or goals are not well-suited to the relatively short history section. I don't know what you mean about the SRMF, or even what it is.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

McTaggart

An editor deleted this material from the "Sociological characterizations" section:

• Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests".

With this edit summary:

• This tag team of POV editing on the McT quote I entered is not acceptable, either its all in or all out. If this is not clear please start a thread on the talk page [33]

The material appears in a reliable source, and is a correct quotation. The edit summary for its removal accuses editors of improper behavior. I have restored the material, and ask the editor who deleted it to explain why it was deleted and why he has made the charge of improper editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests" while acknowledging the compelling weight of the evidence for its Super Radiance theory.

Sheesh. The above summarizes the source.

Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests" .

The above doesn't, and creates POV.

Pretty simple. NPOV, a core policy trumps, "its in another article".(olive (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

This section of the article concerns views of the overall movement. We have another section on TM-Sidhi (AKA Super Radiance) and an entire article on it. TM-Sidhi already contains McTaggart's view of the research on Super Radiance, so there's no need to repeat it here, especially not in this section. The comment from McTaggart is presented with a neutral point of view, neither approving nor disapproving of it nor giving it excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This summary is not what the source says ...pure and simple, and in misrepresenting the source also creates POV... manipulating the source to create a particular slant violates NPOV ....and how interesting a brand- new squeaky -clean editor reverts me....LOL.. Come on. No one believes this is a neutral reading of the source, do they !?(olive (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

No edit warring for me. I'm out a 1RR. And especially with a sock. (olive (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying that it is a misquote? You may note that the version at TM-Sidhi only mentions the part about Super Radiance, because that is the part which is relevant there. As for editors, please focus on the edits, not the editors. If you have a problem with an editor then there are other pages for that.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant? That's a point of view... I shouldn't mention a sock appears out of thin air and reverts me... You want me to go to a sock's page and discuss the socking with him. Sheesh. Alright! (olive (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, there are other pages for discussions of problem editors, including WP:SPI.

As for relevance, I think it's pretty clear. McTaggart's comment about the TMM is relevant to this article on the TMM. Her comment on TM-Sidhi is relevant to that article. Is that in dispute?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Will. I'm done with this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time or yours arguing something that is obvious. The source summary is incomplete and is taken out of context and so create a particular slant. If that's what you want. Fine. but I'm not going to dignify this as a serious discussion.(olive (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't have McTaggert's book in front of me, and there is apparently no online version, so I have no idea whether any of this accurately reflects her views or not. But, assuming it is accurate, for purposes of discussing the reception of the TM Movement, I see nothing odd or improper whatsoever in using her as a source for saying that people have criticized the TM Movement for promoting the Maharishi's personal interests in this article, and as a source for saying that she thinks the evidence for the Maharishi Effect is compelling it that article. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. It is not a violation of NPOV to uses this source in this way. Her views on the ME are irrelevant to public perception of the TM Movement; her reportage on criticism of the TM Movement are irrelevant to her views on the ME. This isn't that complicated, and these complaints are neither well reasoned nor even marginally persuasive. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Now Bigweeboy has deleted it, with an edit summary of "Let's talk",[34] but I don't see any posting from him on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing more I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm in having the text "while acknowledging the compelling weight of the evidence for its Super Radiance theory." where it is. It does not do any harm. We have seen text included in other sections of TM related articles where some positive comment on the subject has been "balanced" by some counter view. This seems reasonable to leave as it was. --BwB (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is harm in asserting gratuitious material having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the article in the misguided attempt to "balance". What McTaggert thinks about the Maharishi Effect has nothing whatsoever to do with the general reception by the public of the TM Movement. It is a complete misinterpretation and misunderstanding of NPOV to assert that every positive be "balanced" by a negative, and vice versa. It clutters up an article with irrelevancies to edit with that objective.Fladrif (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

E/C

It's irrelevant to the subject of the section. Including include irrelevant text is harmful to the cohesion of the article. The one view does not balance the other view since they concern different topics. Let's try to maintain a consistent standard.   Will Beback  talk  12:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. So let's "try to maintain a consistent standard" going forward. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fine with manipulation of text, we either use it to say what the author says, or we don't use it at all. Per my recent edits. (18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

It is not a manipulation of text to separate McTaggert's characterization of the reasons for criticism of the TM Movement, and her assessment of the Maharishi Effect research. They are two completely different, comletely unrelated things. McTaggert's sentence is a non-sequitur. The criticism she writes of is of the organization, not of the research. The job of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize the relevant information from the source material. Including irrelevant information simply clutters up an article. Just because somebody at Harper Collins lost track of their blue pencil on that page doesn't mean that we as editors are rendered impotent to distinguish what is relevant from what is irrelevant for a particular article. McTaggert's statement on criticism of the movement is relevant here and irrelevant in the TM Sidhi Article. Her statement on the Maharishi Effect research is relevant to the TM Sidhi article but irrelevant here. This argument completely misunderstands NPOV and the editing process.Fladrif (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide that someone should have edited McTaggart's sentences to mean something different than they do right now. I'm going to assume her publisher hires competent copy editors . That assumption is the luxury of having a policy that says a source is reliable so we don't have to phone over to the publisher and check on who they hire. Leaving out context means we are cherry picking what we want to say in the article rather than using the sources properly and that creates, in this instance, and is, a non neutral edit. (olive (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

That completely misconstrues what I wrote. The edits that you advocate add no context whatsoever. This is not complicated stuff. If someone wrote in an article, "Although they grow a lot of corn in Iowa, the Iowa football team's defense dominated Georgia Tech in the Orange Bowl.", does it provide context in the Wikipedia Corn article to say the Hawkeyes won the 2010 Orange Bowl, or context in the Iowa Football article to say that they grow corn in Iowa? It is not cherry picking, or a violation of NPOV to use our brains to distinquish between two completely unrelated things, and to use them in proper context. Fladrif (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference here is the quote from the source:

• “Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Mararishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of the data is compelling.”The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynn McTaggart.

The quote appears in the section of her book on the Maharishi Effect. The sentence is primarily about the Maharishi effect. Using the entire sentence as a quote in an article is fine with me. However, using a part of the sentence out of context I don't think is good Wiki editing. I am also OK with just leaving it out of this article entirely since the Maharishi Effect is only briefly mentioned.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do folks here think that McTaggart is not a qualified person to be commenting on the TMM, or that her view is not significant?   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Based on her background, I'm inclined to think that she is probably qualified to comment meaningfully on the TM Movement generally. I would question whether her opinion on the ME research and data cited in support of it rises to anything above the personal opinion of a layman. Clearly, her opinions on other matters of science and medicine are, to put it most charitably, unconventional, and less so, baseless and utterly wrong.Fladrif (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed when the quote was first introduced a few months ago on the TM-Sidhi article. It was mentioned by some editors at the that time that if we were accepting the opinions of James Randi etc. that we would also need to accept McTaggart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs)

I agree that the shorter quotation gives the opposite impression of the author's point of view than the longer quotation. So if you're going to use the quotation in the text, instead of just as a reference, quote the whole statement. David spector (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)