Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Needs scrutiny

• 1.In Witchcraft and Magic: Contemporary North America, Barger describes the Maharishi's teaching, particularly on the claimed exponential effects of the Maharishi Effect, as postmillennial.

• 2. In 1983, many students at Maharishi International University were expelled for distributing literature for meditation seminars by Robin Carlsen, and others were suspended and had their "super-radiance cards", needed for admission to the meditation domes, revoked.ed

• 3. Cynthia Ann Humes, associate professor of Philosophy/Religious Studies, writes that the Maharishi insisted on maintaining the purity of his teachings. As an example she cites the case of Deepak Chopra. Chopra had been prominent in the movement before a falling out with the Maharishi in 1994. The Maharishi considered him an apostate and a competitor. The "Maharishi National Council of the Age of Enlightenment" prohibited all interaction with him. Hume also says it is commonly known in Fairfield that one's access to the Golden Dome meditation halls and other privileges can be revoked for attending an event featuring Ammachi, a Hindu spiritual leader and teacher who is revered as a saint.

• 4. In 2007, a TM movement insider released a large number of movement documents to the whistleblower repository Wikileaks. Part of the documentation exposed an organized and coordinated effort to undermine critical examination of the Transcendental meditation movement, including references to TM which appeared on the WWW. These efforts also involved targeting comment sections of web pages related to TM movement press releases, whereby TM supporters would insert salutary comments to make it look as if the articles had exaggerated and more widespread acceptance by the public.

Other:

• O1. Linking sources under headings: Persinger, TM and Cult Mania

References

Comments:

The 'cult religion sect' section has some interesting problems, but this content seems like a good place to start. I don't see this content connected in the sources to 'cult religion or sect' but I may have missed it....As OR it should be removed. I'll leave this comment up for a week or so, then unless there are objections, I'll remove the OR content and sources. (olive (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

If I understand your concern, it's simply that this material does not fit into the section where it is now. If so then the answer is to move it, not delete it. We could have an "other views" section, for example. However, in some cases it might just take a little more material to show how these are related to the section topic. For example, apostacy is a concept in religion, and Hume discusses it in the context of the Maharishi wishing to maintain a monopoly on his type of spiritual teaching. Carlsen was offering "techniques for the discovery of grace" and said that the movement was teaching a "fossilized dogma". Divine grace and dogma are religious concepts. The reference also mentions that dome badges were revoked, presumably from apostates who paid too much attention to Carlsen. Barger discusses the Maharishi's teachings as being the most articulate expression of the postmillenial New Age concept. Millenialism is another religious concept. So I don't think there's a significant problem with including those in the section where they are currently. The cited Wikileaks material concerns responses to critics, many of whom are apostates. But I agree that that material is not clearly connected to the section topic. Since it's connected to losing schools it may make more sense to move to Transcendental Meditation technique#School programs.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets deal with one source at a time and the issue which I brought up on this page, starting with number 1. I've numbered to hopefully make them easier to deal with. (And thanks for rearranging my post, but in the future please don't adjust my posts without my permission). We have several concerns as I see it maybe more. Does the source explicitely support the content? Is the content explicitely appropriate to the section. As a general consideration we're looking for content that complies with WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". Once we've dealt with this we can decide whether the source then is appropriate and useful to other sections. Lets not jump the gun.

As an aside, in looking thorough this section, I noticed the link after the section heading to Persinger's book which is highly POV in a pejorative way. Unless we're going to start linking to books following section headings, (a bag of snakes) and especially in this case the problem is a book that creates POV, that link should be removed. The link by its placement, and its very specific POV violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. We can deal with that later, of course. First things first.(olive (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

OK, we can take them one at a time. I assume your aside is #5.

Discussion: 1

What's the problem with #1? Does the author not describe the teachings as "postmillenial"?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the author say, the TM movement is a religion, a sect, or a cult, if he doesn't the content should go... and he doesn't. If we want to write an article on post and pre millenianism as redefined in and for the "New Age" we would have a place for a short comment about MMY and his philosophical "argument".(olive (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Where should the material go? I suggested an "other views" section. We could also create a section to cover views of the TMM as a "new age movement". There are plenty of sources which address that issue. However I reject the idea that well-sourced, neutral material should be deleted outright simply because it does not fit a section heading. Getting back to #1 - is there any assertion that the material is not supported by the source, or that there are any other problems with it besides its placement in the "RSC" section?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does an "other views" section mean? "Other" to what.... If you want a "views" section I'm sure we can find a ton of material. As I said York is discussing the New Age which is what this content is about and which is the rightful context for the material. As is, the content has nothing to do with the section its in, it must be removed from that section. I have no problem with moving it to a better place at some point nor did I say did. Take care to not mischaracterize me. We cannot use articles as parking places for content waiting for placement in the meantime leaving the reader with inaccurate information The content is parked here. We need to move this OR and move on. Unless there is a good reason to leave OR in this section I'll remove it shortly.(olive (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

The material isn't OR. It correctly summarizes the contents of the source, which are directly about the TMM. If you prefer to have it in another section then we can create a "new age movement" section, or simply add that to the section title. There's no grounds for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On review, I see that York is discussing the Maharishi's teachings rather than the movement. If there's no objection I'll move it to the Maharishi article. ("Philosophy and teaching" section)   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as you've discovered the source is not about the TM movement and is peripherally about MMY... I have no problem with it being in the Maharishi article as long as it is worded appropriately and is accurate per the source.(olive (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Fine. Since there's no one else commenting on this thread I'll assume there's agreement. I post text there and remove it from here.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: 2

If used this content is specifically about MUM and and so belongs in the MUM article, however on checking that article I see its already there. I don't see reference to cult, sect, or religion in the article/source.(olive (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

This material concerns two distinct issues within the movement: the role of dissent or of alternate teachers, and the function and management of the golden domes. However those issues come together in the dome badges. Clearly, the golden domes have far greater significance to the movement then just two buildings on a university campus. If we spent as much attention on them as they deserve the topic might overwhelm the MUM article. It connects with the Invincible America Assembly, which is partly covered in the Hagelin bio, of all places. While the domes are important for TM-Sidhi, they aren't even mentioned in that article, and if they were they'd be limited to the Sidhi aspect and there's more to them than just that. We could add a section here. But I think the best alternative may be to write a standalone article about them. They are independently notable, and a standalone article would give us a place to discuss their history (including the Taste of Utopia, the Invincible America Assembly, the Henning wedding, etc.), their significance, the dome badges issues, etc. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that last edit summary and partial statement...I accidentally put something on the keyboard and must have hit not only the save button filled up the edit summary box....:o\(olive (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning surrounding the Domes....They are indeed buildings with some architectural unusualness, but hardly significant. The Sidhi program can be done anywhere and is. I believe there are multiple places in and around Fairfield, alone. The dome badges ... well they're just badges. There may be certain criteria for having one, but that's hardly notable. The issue of teachers teaching TM outside of the organization may be pertinent to understanding the organization, but I don't see that connected to the domes per say. All of this sounds distinctly coatrackish. However, if you want this content somewhere else besides the MUM article and want to create another article, go ahead. I'll remove it from this article/ section later today.(olive (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

"Hardly significant"? That's not what I read. But getting back to the issue at hand, I agree that this is not directly related to the topic of the section, and since it's already included elsewhere in a related article we can omit it here.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this:

• Since the beginning of his mission to the West in the 1950s, Maharishi had been deeply committed to keeping his teachings pure. He placed strong demands of exclusive allegiance on his followers and ostracized those suspected of being “off the program,” a term used so frequently it was largely replaced by the shorthand acronym “O.T.P.” This emphasis on purity was taken up by his subordinates in Fairfield, and soon Sidhas suspected of participating in proscribed activities or seeing other gurus were banned from the domes. Since the only reason TM practitioners moved to Fairfield in the first place was to participate in group meditations, this was initially a devastating punishment, but it lost its force as increasing numbers of Sidhas were blacklisted. By 2007 or so, nearly everyone had been barred from the golden domes; only a few hundred stalwart souls were still acceptably orthodox.
  • The Neo-Hindu Transformation of an Iowa Town Scott Lowe, Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 13, Issue 3, pages 81–91, ISSN 1092-6690 (print), 1541-8480 (electronic). © 2010

This connects with the Williamson material and the material about Carlsen that we deleted. Maybe we should create a new section about dissent within the movement? Or just a paragraph in this section. But I think the Carlsen material is relevant as an example of the banning of "OTP" persons that has been described by two scholars.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is complete crap: "By 2007 or so, nearly everyone had been barred from the golden domes; only a few hundred stalwart souls were still acceptably orthodox." --BweeB (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a remarkable assertion, but it looks plausible based on what little I know. When he talks about those excluded from group practice I'd assume that he's talking about permanent residents of Fairfield, not MUM students. There are public records of dome attendance.[4] In the fall of 2006 there were roughly 1150 attendees at the average evening session. In the fall of 2010, after 1000 pandits had arrived, there were about 1650 attendees at average evening sessions That indicates that something like 500 fewer non-pandits were engaged in group practice in 2010 than in 2006. 1650 total minus 1000 pandits minus "X" number of MUM students who are Sidhis equals "Y" number of permanent residents. My guess is that X equals 300, which means that Y equals 350 in 2010, down from 850 in 2006. I'd assume that the number of students who are sidhis has remained constant. That's just a "back of the envelope" calculation, but it shows that the assertion could be true.

Is there any way of proving the assertion wrong, or any other source which directly addresses this issue? I'm sure the movement must track how many badges are outstanding, but I doubt they publish that number.   Will Beback  talk  08:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Text says "Buy 2007,....." Plus, author give no references to support the claim. --BweeB (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Highly reliable sources, like scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals, are sufficient. We don't second guess their assertions and check their references. That has already been done by other scholars. In addition to these two academic publications, there are several other accounts of people being dismissed from the movement. One of such incident long ago--the ejection of Andy Kaufman--has even been portrayed in a mass-market movie, Man on the Moon. And more recent incidents appear in biographies and memoirs. Even Charlie Lutes, Jerry Jarvis, and Nancy Herrera de Cooke appear to have been alienated at one time or another. Chopra and Ravi Shankar departed or were sent away. It seems like dissent or disaffection is a significant issue that's insufficiently covered in the current material.   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See the draft at #Discussion: 3a below, which incorporates this material.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We live in a changing world. Everyday people leave their job, their career, their spouse, their club, their neighborhood, their family, or change their hobby, their philosophy, their interests. That's a fact of life and does not automatically imply "dissent" or "alienation" or meant they were "sent away". My point is we need to be careful with this topic and reflect the sources in neutral way and with appropriate weight. Each person's situation and corresponding reliable source(s) should be considered carefully. It may be that all of the people you mention above "departed" but being "sent away" and "alienated" due to "dissent" is something much different. Let's see what the sources say...-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: 3

Humes is talking about relationship of science to spirituality, but she doesn't seem to be equating spirituality with mainstream religion.The actual wording of the content in the article section doesn't relate to the section, but there may be a way of rewording. Still I'm not sure this is the right place for the Humes content which has more to do with a kind of commercialism than religion. Any thoughts on that?(olive (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I think we could greatly expand the summary of Humes' views, and that this is probably one of the better places to do it. The first paragraph of the chapter concludes by saying that MMY's teachings are available "through a wide variety of religious and spiritual programs". She discusses the New Age context as well - recall that I suggested broadening the scope of this section to include characterizations as a New Age movement. Towards the end she describes the TMM as a "Vedantic Export Religion". If you'd like to take on the task of improving our summary of her views on the matter that'd be great.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy until Monday, but I'll look at it and think about what we can do. (olive (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)(

OK. I'll put something together. It will take a few days.(olive (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In looking through the source I think its clear Hume is refererring to Hinduism which she connects to and seems to see as the same thing as Vedic knowledge, but doesn't seem aware that Vedic knowledge predates organized religion. Hinduism though is unlike western religions in that it seems to easily be inclusive rather than exclusive.That aside, I could see adding something to the Hindu section. My problem though is that in first looking at the source, I believe I could view more than I can now. I don't own the book and I can't access 11 pages. I could add a few lines on the Hindu aspect, but not sure it would be accurate since I don't have those last 11 pages, So, I may not be the vest person to rewrite the Hume addition. Any thoughts?(olive (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

First, we can't second-guess scholars working in their field of expertise. So if Humes, a professor of religious studies with a Ph.D. in Asian religions writing in a book published by the State University of New York Press, says that "X is Y", then we can't say that's false because we heard a lecture once which said they're not. As it happens, a connection between TMM and Hinduism has been made by many scholars. I don't know about the assertion that the Vedic period was pre-religion, but I do know that the TMM practices yagyas, which are explicitly religious ceremonies associated in modern times with Hinduism.

Second, the book is available on NetLibrary through the MUM library, if that helps.[5]

Third, I'd point again to her conclusion that the TMM is a "Vedantic Export Religion", which makes two relevant points - it's a religion and it's "Vedantic". She doesn't call it a "Hinduistic Export Religion".

Lastly, if you feel unable to work on this material properly then let's just leave it as it is for now. I have photocopies of the chapter and I can work on it later.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

• One is OR content. The content which I identified above is OR and should be removed. The content, and source that supports that specific content do not specifically reference the section.

• Second you have opened discussion on whether some of that deleted content should be used elsewhere or the sources mined of other information.

I'd like to separate those two issues to keep the discussion simple. First delete the OR content in place, its not compliant.

We've already dealt with relocating some of the content. I will get hold of the Hume book so we can deal with the Hume content. I'd like to deal with removing the non compliant content identified above. Then discuss Hume and what we should be using.

I think the whole Hindu/cult religion sect characterization section should be reworked. Right now it reads like a piece of hamburger, chopped up with bits and pieces that are not significant while more significant aspects are under represented.

and I wasn't suggesting adding OR content myself....that's why I used the term "aside". Hume discusses Hinduism in much of the chapter. Maybe we can get a grasp of the whole chapter rather than picking out a phrase or two which likely lack context. (olive (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm not following you. Are you saying that our summary of Hume includes original research? Which assertions are OR?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hume content in place does not specifically support what is named in the section, and is OR. Nor does any of the content I suggested we remove have anything to do with the section except by inference. If the section head said chocolate cake, and someone added content that said a brown cake was good ...the OR is that chocolate cake is good, but in fact the source didn't say choco cake was good. We've created new information based on connecting 'brown' cake and 'choco' cake and 'good'. Even researchers don't make those kinds of jumps. There is content in the Hume source that could be used that directly references religious. I understood that we were discussing rewriting the Hume content... and I suggested that that there might be a better place for it. The Wikileaks stuff once again doesn't reference the section at all. It needs to be removed. I'm suggesting removing faulty content /sources then reorganizing and rewriting.There are multiple issues to be dealt with, but I think we need to clean up what we have then rework and rearrange. That would be the simplest way to proceed. We've started that process. I'd like to finish it, then move on.(olive (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, but could you speak less abstractly? What exact text in the Hume material is original research? As for Wikileaks, let's deal with these one at a time, per your earlier request.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the content in the article:

Cynthia Ann Humes, associate professor of Philosophy/Religious Studies, writes that the Maharishi insisted on maintaining the purity of his teachings.[211] As an example she cites the case of Deepak Chopra. Chopra had been prominent in the movement before a falling out with the Maharishi in 1994.[211] The Maharishi considered him an apostate and a competitor.[211] The "Maharishi National Council of the Age of Enlightenment" prohibited all interaction with him.[211] Hume also says it is commonly known in Fairfield that one's access to the Golden Dome meditation halls and other privileges can be revoked for attending an event featuring Ammachi, a Hindu spiritual leader and teacher who is revered as a saint.[211]

This is the section heading:

Characterization as a cult sect or religion

Only by inference is the content connected to the heading. That false connection is OR.

We've agreed there is content in the Hume source that would be appropriate into this section. I've agreed to write something on the Hume source. We should remove content that obviously violates WP policy. I'd agree to leaving the old content in place until I find the Hume book, and write something, but I don't really feel we should be leave in place content that violates policy once we've identified it. However if you'd like to do that I'd agree to it.

In the meantime I suggest we move on to the next discussion, Wikileaks content, also OR. (olive (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

The Hume material is an accurate, though perhaps too brief, summary of the source. It is not original research. If we need to adjust the section title or move it to a different section then that's possible. But I cannot condone the deletion of relevant, NPOV material from a scholarly source just because of a perceived mismatch between it and the heading it falls under.

The Hume material summarized here comes from a section of the chapter titled "Religion Turning East and the New Raam Rajya". It is not original research to say that she is discussing religious aspects of the movement. Together with the Carlsen material, etc, we see how the movement deals with apostasy and dissent. Maybe we should create a sub heading for that?   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As is, the paragraph is OR. It does not use content from the source that coincides with the section. "just because of a perceived mismatch between it and the heading it falls under". Was the content placed in that section as an accident? No it wasn't. Its placement was deliberate. It doesn't belong there and while its there its OR. Further: It poorly summarizes the source.

Please do not mischaracterize what I have said repeatedly, and that is, the idea was to extend and rewrite the Hume content using the source in a more complete and comprehensive way. The source is excellent and should be represented in a better way than it is now. Your comment sounds retaliatory which is unfortunate. And yes, a section which looks at how the TM movement would be perceived would be a good idea. NPOV of course showing both sides of the issue. I have to consider how to best deal with the OR, in my opinion of course, but at the moment have no desire to discuss further under the present circumstances. As I said in the past, I have not time for the kind of discussion where I am mischaracterized and have no time to deal with comments where retaliation and attack are implied.(olive (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

Huh? Retaliation? Attack? I can't see anything in my comments which could be described like that.

You've convinced me that this material needs to be moved. I propose a subsection, for this paragraph, the Carlsen material, and a summary of the Lowe assertion (see Discussion #2). We could also include the well-sourced departures of Kaufman, Chopra, and Shankar. It could also cover the issue of maintaining purity of teaching, since that's mentioned by various writers. I'm not sure the best title for such a section. Dissent, apostasy, disunion, leaving the movement, ? If folks don't like it under the "Religion" heading we could make it a subsection of "Participants"/membership.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to start writing something on this. Just waiting for the Hume book to arrive.(olive (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm sure we can add material from Hume to many sections and articles. But as for this material, about dissent, since there's objection to keeping it in this section the answer is to move it to another section. Any other thoughts on a title?   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Hume section in place about the topic of the section? Its not. It needs to be removed. I will have the Hume book shortly and will re add something that suits the section or that suits the "Hindu" section. As I said I 'd like to focus on these four issues before we go on to something else. The issues to reiterate, are about removing content that only be inference refers to the subject heading, and is OR. Do you have concerns about removing OR content? I agree that there is some content we can readd and or rewrite, and there may be a need for a new section. Could we deal with one issue at a time - remove the OR content then move on to the next issue. (olive (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

There's no "OR content". There is a well-referenced paragraph of material that's relevant to the TMM, which you believe is in the wrong section. The correct answer is to move it to the right section, or create a section for it. I'll go ahead and move it later to a new section, along with other similar material. We can add more from Hume to this section later.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Will that's not right or logical or reasonable. The content I've asked for discussion on is OR per Wikipedia, as is, which is what I've been discussing. If its moved then it is of course a different situation and environment. OR depends on the placement of the content. I'm going to tell you quite frankly, that what you're doing here is obvious. You've twisted what I had to say and my good faith discussion to give yourself permission to create a section that is wholly pejorative. You twisted the defining points of OR to make me look as if I have requested deletion of RS content when I haven't. I have discussed OR on a specific section and I've discussed its removal from that section. I've suggested that I could rewrite, or replace that content but you are overriding that too, and you have in effect taken ownership of this discussion and perhaps article. You will generally at this point point out the number of edits by so called TM editors indicating they have control of the TM pages, but in fact you have created more TM material than any other editor by far. I will add that you are a prolific and knowledgeable editor and I don't denigrate your substantial contributions. (olive (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

We're talking past each other, it looks like. Let me see if I understand you. As I see it, you're essentially saying that the implied passage: "Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion: Cynthia Ann Humes...writes that the Maharishi insisted on maintaining the purity of his teachings" says that maintaining purity of teachings is a characterization as a cult, sect, or religion, and that we editors are engaged in synthesis by connecting them in this way. Is that correct?

What I'm saying is that we can eliminate the synthesis by changing the first part of that equation. Maybe something like, "Purity of teaching: Humes...writes that the Maharishi insisted on maintaining the purity of his teachings". I think that would solve the implied OR problem, while retaining good and informative text. Let's find a heading that describe the material rather than deleting the material because it doesn't match the heading. Does that make sense?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: 3a

Purity of teaching

The Maharishi and the TM movement have valued allegiance and purity of teaching. Those who doubt, disagree, or distract are asked to leave. In a scene depicted in the biopic, Man on the Moon, comic performer and avid meditator Andy Kaufman was asked to leave TM teacher training course because his performances were incompatible with the behavior expected of a TM teacher. Robin Carlsen was a former TM instructor who said he had a better alternative to the movement's "fossilized dogma". In 1983, many students at Maharishi International University were expelled for distributing literature for his meditation seminars, and others were suspended and had their "super-radiance cards", needed for admission to the meditation domes, revoked. Carlsen sued MIU for interferring with his seminars. A TM lawyer said they were just asking people to choose between them. In 1992, Albert Miller, a former member, said that participants with doubts were asked to leave.

Cynthia Ann Humes, associate professor of Philosophy/Religious Studies, wrote in 2005 that the Maharishi insisted on maintaining the purity of his teachings. As an example she cites the case of Deepak Chopra. Chopra had been prominent in the movement before a falling out with the Maharishi in 1994. The Maharishi considered him an apostate and a competitor. The "Maharishi National Council of the Age of Enlightenment" prohibited all interaction with him in order to maintain "purity of teaching". Hume also says it is commonly known in Fairfield that one's access to the Golden Dome meditation halls and other privileges can be revoked for attending an event featuring Ammachi, a Hindu spiritual leader and teacher who is revered as a saint.

Scott Lowe's 2010 paper, The Neo-Hindu Transformation of an Iowa Town, says that the Maharishi valued purity of teaching and demanded allegiance from his followers. Those thought to be "off the program" (OTP) were ostracized. This included many people who had moved to Fairfield, Iowa, just to participate in group meditation. The number of sufficiently orthodox practitioners shrank significantly due to the blacklisting.

I'm posting this as a draft. The Zehme material is from memory - I need to dig up the photocopy to get it right. I suggest listing the notable incidents first followed by the scholarly analysis.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to start a new Wiki article with a title like "Transcendental Meditation - Purity of the Teaching", or "Purity of Transcendental Meditation".--BweeB (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that notable. If we need to split the article to reduce length there are better ways of doing it.   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, lets use it. I'd like to see a source for the second line, and then it should be in-line attributed, since it makes some pretty hefty claims.(olive (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm not sure which one is the second line. Are you referring to the Kaufman material from Zehme? As I noted, that's from memory - I'll dig out the source now.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry.... that should have been second sentence not second line. "Those who doubt, disagree, or distract are asked to leave".(olive (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

That's a summary of the other sources. Miller plainly says that those who have doubts are asked to leave. The disagreement part seems to be borne out by the scholars. I just read another memoir about some one banned from the domes for excessively boisterous unstressing, which is what I was thinking of for "distracting" I'll have to track that down. [Carlsen and the saints could also be viewed as a distraction]. But that's just my summary. If you can suggest a better way of putting it then that'd be great.

PS: I reread the Hume material and I think it's a fair summary of that issue. We could rewrite it, but I don't think the substance would change. Also, I just reread the Zehme material and I think I summarized it correctly, but I'll work on it a little.  Will Beback  talk  21:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree to that sentence because as is speaks in Wikipedia's voice and its not accurate. Its just straight up wrong. I'm contesting it. If used it must be inline attributed. I'll agree to the rest.(olive (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

We can preface it be saying, "According to scholars and former members...", to address the problem of using Wikipedia's voice. Do we have any sources which indicate this is wrong or inaccurate, or is that just personal experience?   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to accommodate this issue. The problem is that if you say scholars and former members that implies all scholars and former member while saying 'some' scholars and former members is weasel wording and too vague to be useful. Better to name the scholars and former members, and the best might be to remove the sentence. The other problem is that as is, your paragraph is only one sided. There is a whole other side to purity of the teaching per sources, and for those who have left the movement, we have testimonials of those who've stayed. Per NPOV that would have to be added, would it not? In which case the sentence under discussion only summarizes the pejorative and not the other side to be added later. The easiest seems to be to remove the summary sentence and just cite in line the author in line. Its tricky for sure.(olive (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

If you want to add the content I'd be fine with it, we can add and tweak once its in place. It might be good to see how it looks and where it fits best.

Wikipedia policies make it hard to write a decent topic sentence. Topic sentences are an important art of good writing and make it easier for readers to understand the expository material that follows. But that's not necessarily a problem we can solve here and now. I'll go ahead and post this material without that sentence. Further improvements are always possible.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have content I can add as well. The Hume book has come in the mail so I can start dealing with that, too.(olive (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

"Keeping the teaching pure" - what does this mean? Keeping what pure? What does "pure" mean? Feel we would need to give the reader more context? Why are we giving this so much prominence in the article? --BweeB (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add context. Purity of the teaching is a TM org phrase and as such has evolved to become pretty cliche driven. I changed it slightly because as it was it was a quote that was not sourced. (olive (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)) Any ideas for a better heading.(olive (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Other than a reference to Bevan Morris, now added, I don't see the phrase "purity of teaching" repeated frequently in easily searched TM literature. Are there other important references to it that we're missing?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed form this section - "In a scene depicted in the biopic, Man on the Moon, comic performer and avid meditator Andy Kaufman was asked to leave TM teacher training course because his performances were incompatible with the behavior expected of a TM teacher." It is only tangentially connected to the subject and has to do with his performances. --BweeB (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with who was allowed to be a TM teacher and a conduit of the movement's teachings.   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The source for the reference is a movie. Is there a better source than a movie... and citing a movie as source for either verifiability or truth isn't really compliant is it.The problem with any movie is of course the liberties the actors and directors take with the information. If you want to cite content that comes out of movie land... Its pop culture....As far as it being the truth or not. No idea. Wasn't around. Were you? Who says its true.(olive (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

(undent) Renaming subsection to "Adherence to Movement Policies". --BweeB (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do we get that term from? the best source specifically refers to purity of teachings, not of "movement policies". Or did I miss something?   Will Beback  talk  09:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Movement policies is narrow and vague so I've reverted it.

I'd agree that a movie should not be used to depict anything. Its a pop culture addition. I'll move it and give it lead-in words to explain.(olive (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

I will not fight you on this Olive, but I don't really like the "Purity of the Teaching" title either. What is "purity of teaching"? Maybe in time we will come up with something better. Glad for the Kaufman move. --BweeB (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a pop culture reference - it's an event in the life of a famous member of the TM movement, depicted in both a movie of his life and in his biography.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a reference to a movie.You can cal it whatever you want, its still a movie.(olive (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

Yes, Man on the Moon (film) is a movie, and it stars a major movie star. But it's not a fictional portrayal.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The point of mentioning its portrayal in a movie, rather than simply saying it happened, is that it's unusual for events related to the TM movement to appear in major motion pictures. Minor though it is, this is perhaps the most widely seen event in TM history.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But what's it got to do with "purity of the teaching"? --BweeB (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The selection of teachers is obviously critical to the quality of the teaching.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note per discussion on Purity of the teaching. I have added content as I mentioned I would. Sorry it took so long to get to. RL obligations needed attention. (olive (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Discussion: 4

WP:OR. Only by inference is this cult, sect, religion. A source must explicitly reference the topic. This doesn't reference the section heading in anyway.

In 2007, a TM movement insider released a large number of movement documents to the whistleblower repository Wikileaks.[212] Part of the documentation exposed an organized and coordinated effort to undermine critical examination of the Transcendental meditation movement, including references to TM which appeared on the WWW.[212] These efforts also involved targeting comment sections of web pages related to TM movement press releases, whereby TM supporters would insert salutary comments to make it look as if the articles had exaggerated and more widespread acceptance by the public.

We've got two other active discussions. Can we finish those first?   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this would be better under a heading like "Self promotion"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets deal with the final content /source per my opening statement on discussion 4.(olive (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

Unless someone can show here that this content directly supports the topic of cult and TM it must be removed. I'll give it a few days for comments.(olive (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

It's directly related to the movement, and should not be removed from the article. If you can suggest a better location that'd be fine. Or we can broaden the section name by adding something like "and other topics".   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Its not compliant where it is. Lets go with self promotion as Doc suggested.(olive (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Please do not remove it. Move it if you feel the need.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Will you can't demand that another editor retain content in a section that isn't compliant. We can add it somewhere else if the source is compliant and if there's a place for it, and if 'weight' is satisfied. That's Wikipedia. As I said maybe promotion is a good section to start. Something to discuss.(olive (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Sourced, neutral material shouldn't be deleted for minor reasons. If you want to put it into a "promotion" section I have no objection.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt OR is a minor reason.(olive (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)(

A problem easily solved by broadening the section header or by moving it. Being located under the wrong section heading is not a good reason to delete text.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.[6]   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization and I suspect others would too, but your new section is fine . I'll add more content.(olive (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

My edit summary for that last edit probably doesn't make sense... so made your subsection into a section since promotion has nothing to do with cults religion...response to criticism may be connected but not necessarily.(olive (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

That's Better. --BweeB (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Posting at RSN

I have posted a request for input at the RSN Noticeboard, on whether the Lynne McTaggart source, as written, is appropriately used in the lead. The discussion is posted here: [7] --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good practice to discuss an issue on the article talk page before going to a noticeboard. How is that a sourcing issue? Is McTaggart not a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At RSN we generally look at whether the source is reliable for a particular statement -- rather than giving blanket approval to a source. If a source makes an assertion without giving any kind of corroborating evidence or support or anything, then it may not necessarily be reliable for that particular statement. TimidGuy (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the McTaggart book is deemed an unreliable source then we'll need to reconsider references to it in other articles as well. I'd be fine either way, keep it or lose it, but let's be consistent. This claim is no more remarkable than others right beside it.   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should consistently look at sources to see whether they adequately support and corroborate the assertions they make. The feeling at RSN is generally that you can look at it on a case-by-case basis. A book may be reliable for one assertion but not another, depending on the evidence. You have yourself said that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Identical refs after every sentence?

The final paragraph of this article has a ref after every sentence.

In 2007, a TM movement insider released a large number of movement documents to the whistleblower repository Wikileaks. Part of the documentation exposed an organized and coordinated effort to undermine critical examination of the Transcendental meditation movement, including references to TM which appeared on the WWW. These efforts also involved targeting comment sections of web pages related to TM movement press releases, whereby TM supporters would insert salutary comments to make it look as if the articles had exaggerated and more widespread acceptance by the public.

I made what I thought was a minor edit -- simply having a single ref at the end of the paragraph. This was reverted. Isn't it odd to have identical refs after every sentence? Is there a MOS guideline for this? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For controversial material it is useful to have all these refs. As everything about this topic is controversial refs are needed for every line. What one could do is use <!-- --> to just not show it but leave the ref in the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm not sure of the syntax. Where does that go in the ref? TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, those citations were added in response to a specific request.[8] In my experience with this topic, editors expect every sentence to be cited.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mason editions

The 2005 edition of Mason's book has the earmarks of a self published book, and so logically we should favour his earlier 1994 edition. Could we get discussion/ agreement on that so that we are all using the RS. (olive (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

I've written to the author to ask him about the differences between the editions.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Mason replied quickly. He says that the 2005 edition was not self-published, and that there is little difference between it and the 1994 edition. If those are both correct then I see no reason to avoid using the latter edition.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the publisher-Evolution- is listed on a list of UK publishers, and the book can only be purchased from Mason's web site, but I'm happy to take Mason's word for it. I think then, we can use either edition Thanks for emailing him on this.(olive (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC))

Syman

• [The TM movement] has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press, with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.

I don't see any discussion on this page of Syman, but the citation from this sentence was deleted today with the edit summary, "Sources does not support content..see talk".[9] What's the problem?   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong content. This:

...with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.

and this source

There's ambiguity as to which statement in the complex sentence that source is meant to cite. We can't assume it's the last one, since it's traditional to place citations at the end. Rather than preemptive deletion, it'd have been better to bring it here first asking for clarification. Looking at the source, I see it says that the Beatles felt he was "abusing his power" in order to get sexual favors from students.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not unclear at all since Doc added that source specifically to support the McTaggert quote. [10]with this comment." I have added further refs. There is no indication that the source is self published. Typically one is supposed to discuss an issue on the talk page before going to a notice board. It does not appear that this occurred in this case. The issue has been addressed by further refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) (olive (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

OK, so now we know why it was added and what it says. I'd say that concerns about MMY getting sexual favors from students are a form of "concern that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests". We can something like, "including sexual favors" if you feel it isn't explicit enough.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR. Do you see content in the Symen source that explicitly supports the statement, "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests"? If not please remove the source or I'd be happy to. What any us think the author is talking about is not a consideration. (olive (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

What we thin the author is talking about is indeed a consideration. We aren't here to copy what authors say - we're here to summarize them. Summarizing a point requires understanding it. I understand that the Beatles were concerned that the Maharishi was too interested in self-promotion. We can add more sources for that, and we can add more text to the sentence to cover that specific concern about the promotion of MMY's personal interests.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What the Beatles thought of MMY is a consideration but the lead should summarize. Are we ready to add specific content about what others had to say about MMY to make sure content is neutral? The lead is not the place for adding the pros and cons of what the many notable people thought of MMY. This belongs in the body of the article and of course there are multiple views and considerations both pro and con. The lead should summarize and should do so as should the article in a neutral fashion. You've side stepped the original discussion which had to do with the very simple concern of a source that did not support the content. If you want to adjust the content please do so in a neutral manner and per lead and please get consensus on the talk page, because from what you're suggesting now you are suggesting content that is not appropriate in a lead and which would skew POV. For that matter now that I think of it the McTaggert content is not neutral either since there is no provision in the lead for a counter view of which there are many, should we decide to do more than summarize in a lead (olive (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

This seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. What text do you want to add to the body of the article?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Symen source is still in place despite the fact that it doesn't support the content, and I did ask Doc if he could point me to the chapter in the 2005 addition Mason book so I can check the content that supports the McTaggert text, which he hasn't done. I'll leave a message on his user page. I'd like to tidy this issue up in the next few days if possible. (olive (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Too bad you didn't ask about the Mason citation earlier - I was just at the library looking at it.

As for the Syman material, the body of the article already discusses the Beatles issue. We can expand the lead to include it explicitly.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mason

"Question for James: Could you cite the chapter in the Mason book you've taken the ref content from? I have the older version and there's nothing in those pages in my edition that supports the content. I suspect the pages have changed in the newer edition.(olive (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC))"

Let's deal with Mctaggert first and not get sidetracked. I'll see what James has to say, then check the Mason source.(olive (talk)

This thread is about Syman. Maybe we should create a Mason thread.   Will Beback  talk  02:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What does McTaggart have to do with Mason? I'm confused.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

James added Mason as a source for the Mctaggert content. (olive (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

What "McTaggert content"? The only mention of McTaggert is in the "promotion" section:

• Author Lynn McTaggart says there have been concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.
  • McTaggart, Lynne (July 24, 2003). The Field. HarperCollins. p. 211. ISBN 9780060931179.

If you're referring to the sentence in the lead:

• It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10][11][12]

That's not "McTaggert content" - that's a summary of three sections: "Connection to Hinduism", "Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion", and "Promotion".   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, to reiterate. This "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10][11][12]", is from McTaggert rather closely references McTaggert in fact, and the last two sources Mason and Symen were added by James specifically to support the McTaggert comment. The Symen source does not support the content and has to be removed, and I'm checking the Mason source. I assume you've forgotten that I've already explained this. Its been a long time since the last discussion.(olive (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

If you have Mason then it's not hard to find places where he talks about the movement's promotional efforts. For example, pages 225-227 (1994 edition). We should be adding more of this to the "Promotion" section. I've add something from Syman, in which she says the Beatles thought he was abusing his position for personal benefit.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your addition. Its fine but can be trimmed a bit I'd say, and I'll add more content so the section is neutral, then we can revise the sentence in the lead to summarize the section.(olive (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

There's more to add from Mason, and a number of other sources directly address the marketing of the movement/technique.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll add content too, while making sure sure we adhere to to 'weight' and NPOV.(olive (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

What's with the "clarify" tag? What needs clarification? [11]   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The link did not go to info about the book that is being cited. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the link to go to the book. But the source is the book itself, not the Google copy.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Quote

• Will Beback, in the lead paragraph of the section called Organizations and Structure you added this text: [The New York Times referred to it as a "multibillion-dollar self-help industry"].
• However, the source says: "The TM movement was a founding influence on what has grown into a multibillion-dollar self-help industry, and many people practice similar forms of meditation that have no connection to the Maharishi’s movement."

The source says the TMM was an influence on a multibillion-dollar industry. It does not say that the TMM was a multibillion dollar industry. Therefore, current text is incorrect and misleading and I feel it should be removed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've edited the text to better summarize the source.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Finishing discussion: Sentence in lead by Lynne McTaggart

This sentence portion by Lynne McTaggart, : "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." was deemed inappropriate for the lead of this article following the discussion on the RS noticeboard: [12]. However, Will Beback has asking that rather than simply removing, the sentence, that it be used somewhere else in the article. Input is requested whether you think given the subject matter whether the sentence should be deleted, as not belonging in the lea.. If instead you believe it should be moved please indicate where you think it would belong and also, should it survive on its own or be expanded to include the entire paragraph (below) to better reflect the meaning intended by the author as per WP:OR.

Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The material could go in the "promotion" section, since it concerns the promotion of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it belongs in this article. Have added a second ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You two are so predictable. Its hilarious. (olive (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Do you think comments about other editors are really helpful? Shall I add some observations of my own, perhaps about the predictably of other editors here? Instead, let's just stick to discussing the material, please.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So Will was there NB consensus for removing this content from the lead or not... Is it predictable to follow process- have outside input, then act according to that process. I hope so because that's seems to be what happened here, unless you or James have some other reason for why this was reverted. Will you always retaliate and James often reverts unilaterally if he doesn't like something. Very predictable . Since this discussion is about a reversion against a NB I do have something to say about editor behaviour. And I still don't see anyone explaining why this reversion was acceptable. Maybe you can explain .(olive (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

James please cite the early Mason edition . The later one is self published if I remember correctly.(olive (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Ref? [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Self published [14]. The 1994 edition was not self published and is the edition we can use.(olive (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Actually there's a lot of indication the book is self published, and Will has in the past indicated he felt the 2005 edition was probably self published and shouldn't be used.

Luke could you link to the Notice Board please, so we can have a look at the comments. Oops sorry I see the link above.(olive (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

So Doc... Any reason you are reverting against a NB consensus? Unless there 's a good reason you should be reverted.(olive (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

I have added further refs. There is no indication that the source is self published. Typically one is supposed to discuss an issue on the talk page before going to a notice board. It does not appear that this occurred in this case. The issue has been addressed by further refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's a lot of indication the book is self published. Will also has in the past indicated he felt the 2005 edition was probably self published and shouldn't be used.

Doc. The NB gave feedback. Once again you are ignoring NB feedback when feedback is not supporting your version of content or your position, and you are making up rules to do so. This is becoming more and more of a concern.(olive (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

The feedback at the noticeboard, IIRC, was that we shouldn't have material in the intro which isn't also in the body of the article. We've now added this and other material to the body of the article on the topic of promotion, so the material in the intro serves as a summary of that. Luke Warmwater 101 should not have deleted the sourced material instead of moving it, as we've been over many times before. In any case, let's leave the past in the past and let's move forward with building the "promotion" section to cover that topic fully.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to add more content, and to flesh out content that references that McTaggert source so that its accurate per the source. Will you like the rest of us are an editor on this article . Your opinion on what should happen to content that is moved or removed is not binding on anyone and is not policy. Your stipulation on a NB about what should happen to the content is in no way binding on anyone either. Its just one opinion. As well you are clearly mischaracterizing Luke who asked for input on multiple questions including where the removed content should go. Bringing discussion to a talk page rather than unilateral editing is a more collaborative way of proceeding. Please reread his post above. And Will. I said this before. As long as you mischaracterize me or other editors I will correct you. Neutral, fair discussion can't proceed if that discussion rests on a groundwork of false information. Now yes, lets continue.(olive (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

I quite properly took the material out of the lead after The RSN determined it did not belong there (if you read the discussion that is quite clear). Again, I waited until the discussion on the noticeboard was concluded and consensus was reached. Out of respect for a fellow editor, rather than simply deleting the sentence, I moved it to the talk page to see whether others also felt it should be placed elsewhere in the article. There was never any question about it remaining in the lead, and so there was no reason to leave it there. For some reason, rather than respecting the noticeboard decision, James decided to revert me, and replace the sentence in the lead. I do not intend to start an edit war, however I do not understand the reason why James would simply ignore RSN: if that is the proper procedure then the entire noticeboard process becomes a waste of time.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid refighting old battles, OK? We now have a "promotion" section, which we didn't have when the NB discussion was going on. Going forward, what do we need to do to improve this article?   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue was that the content was not sufficiently referenced. Now it is. Problem solved. Article improved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the Syman source that supports the content. I 'd be happy to reinstate the source if I'm wrong and have missed something.(olive (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

Will. Could you give me the page number in the Symen source that supports the sentence in the lead. I don't see it. Unless you can show me the content I should remove the source again.(olive (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

• Question for James: Could you cite the chapter in the Mason book you've taken the ref content from? I have the older version and there's nothing in those pages in my edition that supports the content. I suspect the pages have changed in the newer edition.(olive (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

The McTaggert content was clearly taken out of context. We can either remove the content or we can add context but as is the source is nor accurately represented.(olive (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

I don't see any relevant context. What are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Quotation:

Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.

The author made a point - MMY 's own interests"-specifically in relation to another point-"sheer weight of compelling data". I don't think this is a good source for this kind of comment on MMY, there may be better, but to take selectively one point to support a position and not the other does not the represent the source accurately, and pushes a POV. I'll wait for Luke to weight in since he started this thread.(olive (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

Those are separate points. We've been over this already in other locations. To use an analogy, if a writer says, "The barn, which was built in the 1950s, later became a symbol of of rural pride", then we can use it as a reference for the 1950 date without having to say what it later became. They are independent clauses.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there a consensus reached in the other discussions? Your analogy doesn't work because the syntax structures are different and create different meanings. They're simply not comparable... apples and oranges. Using one part of this paragraph but not the rest is cherry picking and does not accurately represent the source. A more sophisticated way of applying sources is to use and understand context and the overall sense of what the author means which I think we should be applying. No academic could get away with discarding the overall meaning in that paragraph in aid of attempting to create a position. Hopefully our standards can be at that level. Since Luke started this thread I'll back off and let him deal with it for now. (olive (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 1#McTaggart January 2010
• Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Archive_2#Maharishis' interests January 2010
• Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 7#What Context? January 2010

On the issue of whether it's necessary to include everything in a sentence or paragraph, see:

• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Accurate representation of a source March 2011

Luke's issue here was simply that we had material in the lead which was not also in the body of the article. That has now been fixed.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Though It's true that the point I brought out earlier was different from the one olive has introduced, this is also an issue that needs to be discussed. In the NB discussion Will reported above, a decision was made based on the assumption that the clauses dealt with two separate topics, and for that reason only, it was thought they could be split. In spite of that it was recommended that the sentence be removed. In this case, there are no separate issues, therefore the same claim cannot be made. Thus, the issue of whether the author's meaning as reported is correctly represented needs to be reviewed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a few words to clarify the Mc Taggart sentence, It now reflects more closely what the author meant. Hopefully this will resolve the issue.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

the material you added, though “the sheer weight of data…[on the positive effects of TM]...is compelling”, hasi nothing to do with promotion of the TM movement. It concerns the evidence supporting the positive effects of the TM technique, and so it belongs in the article about the TM technique, or the research article, but it's not relevant to this article or section.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence without the material I added, is misleading as to its true meaning. In this instance using that single sentence is refashioning what the author says to suit your purpose. The paragraph should either appear in its correct format,or be removed, as per WP:NOR. The sentence you have selected is not representative of the position advanced by the book.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. We've been over this many times. The sentence in McTaggart covers two separable issues: the reputation of the movement for promotion, and the weight of the research. The source is quoted in a section on promotion, so only the promotion clause is relevant. The material on the research could well be appropriate for an article or section on research, but that's a separate issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, the single promotion clause would be relevant on its own if it reflected the intention of the author, and of the paragraph in the book had been about about promotion, but it is not; it is a stranded sentence, without any references and preceded by the word "although", the author's paragraph is not about promotion; it is, as you say, about research. Picking a word here and there in total disregard for what the book is saying is not appropriate use of a source. Again, we either use the whole paragraph, or if that is not appropriate, we should remove the sentence. You have plenty if other sources that do mean what they say, why not stick to those? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that the author doesn't mean what she says. We're not "picking a word here and there" - we're quoting the relevant part. This is just like an author who writes, "Despite being only 5'11", John Doe was considered among the best basketball players of his generation." It wouldn't be necessary to quote that entire line in a section concerning Doe's height. This is no different.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy does not apply to the instant case: height is a both a neutral concept and a factually verifiable one, whereas the sentence you picked makes a very accusatory unsupported statement, unverified by the author, and one that contradict the tone of everything else that is being said by her, which is why this is not, in my opinion, good use of a source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The analogy can be modified to address your concern. "Despite being personally unpopular, John Doe was considered among the best basketball players of his generation." Whether it's objective or subjective isn't important. The issues are whether the two clause are separable (they are) and whether McTaggart is a reliable source (debatable, but presumable).   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the issue of context has never been clearly addressed. Nor is there agreement on how this source should be used. So clearly this issue has to be to be settled, and discussed either here on on a Notice Board until it is. As Will says above, "There's no reason to believe that the author doesn't mean what she says", and I'd add to that, to believe the syntax she uses is an accident. McTaggert is deliberately placing in juxtaposition one pejorative sentence against an entire non pejorative paragraph providing a context which clearly questions the pejorative statement. We can't ignore the context and select the part of a source that suits our needs. McTaggert didn't separate the points about MMY's interests, and the research; she placed them in a single paragraph creating deliberate juxtaposition and context. The appropriate use of this source would be to use both the comment about MMY's interests and to note the context which the author uses. Selecting either one or the other to support a statement in the article is a form of OR.(olive (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

The logical conclusion of this argument is that we could not quote or cite any source, because inevitably we'd be taking the quotation or citation out of context. But that's incorrect. Just because the source presented two separate concepts in juxtaposition does not mean that we we need to present the information the same way.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Juxtaposition creates meaning. We must summarize the meaning conveyed by the source. We can't take words and use them outside of their context which ignores meaning. The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that an editor can ignore context and so meaning, and cherry-pick words to support a position. It also means cherry picked words can be strung together to create a subtle but specific slant to an article which is a particularly insidious form of OR. Summarizing a source rather than selecting parts of it without context helps prevent such non compliant editing and inaccurate content. The paragraph we are dealing with is almost exclusively about the research. McTaggert uses a sentence which contains no detail to set up that paragraph. We cannot as editors choose to ignore the content in the paragraph and focus on the single opening sentence clearly used to create juxtaposition and to set off the extent of the research. If we use that opening sentence we should be using it in context of the paragraph of which it is a very small part , summarizing the paragraph as a whole.(olive (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

The section in question is not a summary of McTaggart's book, chapter, or paragraph. Instead it is a discussion of the promotion of the TM movement. Whatever McTaggart and other sources have to say about promotion of the TM movement is relevant. Other topics are not relevant to this section, but could be included in other sections or articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That section is a discussion of promotion of the TM movement and within that is a sentence whose source must per Wikipedia:NOPV, RS, and OR be summarized accurately. If an accurate summary does not "fit" in that section then the whole thing should be removed. We don't misrepresent a source to make it fit into a section.(olive (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

Quoting a source verbatim obviates the issue of summarization. The idea that we can only cite or quote a source if we cite or quote their entire work is absurd on the face of it. Authors make points and we don't need to include all of them - just the relevant ones.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Quoting a source verbatim".... The idea that we can only cite or quote a source if we cite or quote their entire work..." Why are you mischaracterizing what I've said and reframing the discussion.?Sorry Will, that's not an honest characterization of the discussion and I won't involve myself in that game.(olive (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

You seem to be saying that we are mis-summarizing a source unless we include every point the author makes, no matter how irrelevant those other points may be. I think that leads to an absurd conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize my comments. I am referring to one discussion, on one source and I am saying that in this instance context is important. The issue is not the material itself. Luke suggested using another source for the same content. The issue is whether we use this source or not in the way we are using it. Perhaps we need outside eyes to look at it. I would be happy to go with community input on this.(olive (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

I've been watching this conversation unfold without any real intention of engaging it, but I have to agree with Olive here - this is a gross misquoting of McTaggart. McTaggart is actually saying:

"…[the] organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests"

That is clearly McTaggart talking about other critics and the criticisms they have levied against the movement. But the passage in our article implies something entirely different: that she herself is expressing concerns about the organization over issues that she herself thinks are true (clearly belied by the remainder of the paragraph). Somehow it's gotten mucked up so that we are presenting McTaggart as though she herself said what she has quoted other people as saying - that's like asserting that John Stewart is a conservative because he quotes FOX News.

I'm tempted to delete it right now under V, RS, and maybe even BLP (asserting that a living person holds opinions contrary to their states views is not nice), but I'll wait for responses first. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but is easily addressed by a slight change in wording. The article currently says:

• Author Lynn McTaggart says there have been concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.

Instead we could say something like:

• Author Lynn McTaggart says that the "organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests".

That is clear and avoids any possible misinterpretation caused by summarization or paraphrasing.   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're still ignoring context, Will.(olive (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

Sure, let's add more.

• In her book, The Field, author Lynn McTaggart says that the "organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests".

That establishes the context.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, Will, that is not what McTaggart said. McTaggart is making a relatively positive claim prefaced by a recognition that there has been some (to her mind, as is obvious) unjust criticisms. You've extracted the critical observation from the otherwise positive statement in order to make McTaggart look critical when she clearly isn't. This is not that fourth-grade "But that's what she saaaaid!!!" game; this is an encyclopedia where we represent sources accurately in terms of what they are trying to say.

I'm not going to squabble with you over this obvious of a misrepresentation of a written source. Either you're just giving Olive a good natured troll or you really don't understand why what you're doing is wrong. If you want to keep up with this, then let's trot it over to wp:V/N and get some uninvolved opinions on how well you are representing McTaggart's position. --Ludwigs2 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, this is exactly what the source says. The question is simply whether the sentence's two clauses are separable or comprise one inextricable concept. I've suggested that they are really separable, as the weight of the research is entirely separate from the perception of TM's promotion. Further, you're presenting a false dichotomy, calling me either a troll or an idiot. I'm neither, and personal comments like that are unhelpful.

I've posted a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Promotion of the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, I have enough experience with you to know you are neither a troll or an idiot. I don't always agree with what you do or how you do it (…understatement…), but I do recognize you as one of the smarter people on project. That's why I find this kind of thing so bizarre: you really have to bone English hard to make this say what you're trying to make it say. But, let's take it up over at NPOV. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not boning English hard, whatever that means. This is clearly what the author says about perceptions of the movement and its promotion. Whether she's qualified to opine on the topic is a separate question. Some editors here seem to think that she is not, but if she isn't then I don't see how she would be considered reliable on other issues either.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop it Will. No one questions McTaggert. This is more of a stylistic concern and the understanding that presents.(olive (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

Let me clarify this point: do you consider McTaggart an adequate source on the issue of promotion?   Will Beback  talk  04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in this passage that indicates McTaggart is even talking about promotion - she merely mentions it in passing. so your question is meaningless. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning something in passing still means that she it's been mentioned. I'm not aware of any rule which says we can only cite sources that devote substantial space to a topic. My question is not meaningless, as you've asserted on the noticeboard that McTaggart is not a competent source, while Littleolive oil seems to say that she is.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, I've made no such assertion - I'm not judging McT one way or another (I haven't read enough of the material to evaluate her as a source yet). I'm simply pointing out the quoting error you've made.

With respect to your other comment: I've been assuming that you've had at least some graduate-level training - is that incorrect? Because I have a hard time imagining someone trained in scholarship making the argument you just made. Authors do not write independent sentences and then string them together haphazardly, and you cannot treat them like they do without getting what they say entirely wrong. This is not academic MadLibs, Will. You have cherry-picking one quote you happen to like out of a passage that more or less says the opposite, and tried to present it as though it was what the author intended to say, and that's not appropriate. If you have a problem with the reliability of this source, that's a separate issue, but mucking around with the words in order to give the wrong impression about what the source says is an utterly bizarre move on an encyclopedia. You're not ten, so the "But that's what she SAAAAID" approach is not all that believable or endearing. right? --Ludwigs2 07:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal comments or assering that I'm acting like a ten-year-old, a troll, or an idiot. It's unconducive to collegial discussions.

The two clauses are independent. She is not saying something like, "Many people like X, but I do not". Rather, she is saying something like "Many people like X, but I consider Y to be very important". They are separate issues. The views of the promotion of the Maharishi and his movement are independent of the weight of research on one aspect of the movement. She does not assert any connection.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a hair-splitting irrelevancy. The first clause is not an independent statement from the rest of the paragraph, and it is clearly not her thesis in the paragraph. If you could find something from the greater piece that supports that as a meaningful aspect of her work, that would change the complexion of things, but as it stands you cannot isolate that one phrase as though it has a life of its own.

And I did not call you a troll, an idiot, or a ten-year-old - please reread what I wrote if you're confused about this. However, you are making the kind of argument that one typically finds from ten-year-olds. That's fine with me if that's what you want to do, I don't mind. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources. Why folks are fixated on this one mystifies me. Apparently any criticism is unacceptable.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Will. The person fixated on this source is you. Luke advised that other sources would be preferable. A source is reliable for the content it is being cited for . If you' like to tell me what specifically you'd like to use McTagerrt for, and if that is to be added to an article I'll be happy to tell you what I think. I'm not interested in making some kind of general statement about any source. Its a waste of time . Further you can stop anytime making false accusations on this talk page, which I'll add, are easy to disprove.(olive (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

It sounds like folks here would be amenable to including McTaggarts's view of the research, combined with her view of promotion, in the research article. Any objections to moving it to that article?   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the ME seems to be on the edge of mainstream science and per Hans Adler's comment, it would seem McTaggert is not a good source for comments about the research. I would tend to agree with that, as I said on the NPOV NB, but I'm open to discussion on the matter.(olive (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

The McTaggart book is entirely on the topic of fields, of which the ME is one. She's as expert on that topic as anyone. But if we decide that the book is not a reliable sources then it should be removed from all articles. I'm confused as to who believes it is reliable.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, sources are reliable only per the the content they reference.

McTaggert is an investigative journalist. Is she by Wikipedia's standards, a RS for scientific research?

Lets look at the content you want to add then decide of McTaggert is a RS for that content.(olive (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Just as an aside, reliability is not an ontological boolean. A source can be highly reliable for one topic, not reliable for another, somewhat reliable for a third… Saying a source is "not a reliable source [and] should be removed from all articles" is book burning, not editing. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what "sources are reliable only per the the content they reference" means. Is there another way of saying that?

Why would an investigative journalist be a poor source for the statement that "the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests"?   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Luwigs' excellent comment above on what is not an ontological boolean. He is making this point, "sources are reliable only per the the content they reference" in more sophisticated language. Since you're the one suggesting this,"Why would an investigative journalist be a poor source for the statement that 'the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests'", perhaps you would like to answer your own question. I clearly referred to the research. I also said I would be happy to comment on the specific sources suggested for any specific content you wished to add. (olive (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Let's get back to the main issue at hand: Does anyone here feel that McTaggart is not a reliable source for her assertion that "the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests" If so, why?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, Will that's not the issue at hand. That's the red herring you have introduced into this conversation by reframing the original discussion.

• Please show editors here, the specific part of the source you wish to use to reference that statement, and as has been repeated several times, I or we can comment on whether that specific part of the source is an appropriate reference for, "the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests".

• We have clear directives from the NPOV Notice Board from non involved editors on the issue up to this point. We should implement changes based on the NB input unless you are challenging that input.(olive (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

The quote is good. We should keep it. Feel free to bring this to a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I disagree that the clauses are inseparable, or that the second clause concerns promotion, I have added a summary of the second clause to address the continued complaints. It now reads:

• In her book, The Field, author Lynne McTaggart says that the "organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's own personal interests", though she notes that though "the sheer weight of data...[on the Maharishi Effect]...is compelling".

I hope that is acceptable to all.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the editors on the NB were complaining, as an aside. Your change includes context which makes the text more accurate per the source. Thanks for making that change.(olive (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

I do think though think we still have to adjust wording slightly to make it clear McTaggert is noting criticism, but is not criticizing herself. Any idea how to do that easily; it would require just a slight word adjustment, I would think.(olive (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

• terminology reversal for emphasis, like so?: "In her book, The Field, author Lynne McTaggart notes that the "organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's own personal interests", but suggests that "the sheer weight of data…[for the Maharishi Effect itself]...is compelling".'' --Ludwigs2 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds much better and is an acceptable compromise, the post, as proposed, is much more faithful to the original.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I edited it in. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs, its a slightly more-accurate -to- the-source version.(olive (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

Added source to the lead

I’ve added a source by George Chryssides to the lead of this article. This source, and the words that go with it (about TM not being a religious practice), were added to a virtually identical section in the lead of the MMY article several month ago following prolonged discussions [15] [16] [17], and eventually consensus [18]. Since the section is really about TM and the TMM, I felt it is properly placed here.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a reasonable edit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

See Also section

Olive, I notice that you have reverted user:Kittfoxxe's deletion of "TM and Cult Mania" from the See Also section.[19] While I agree that the TM and Cult Mania book is a "legitimate wiki linked related topic", I question the necessity of having it highlighted in the See Also section when it is already listed in the TM navigation template at the bottom of the article along with dozens of other related articles. WP:SEEALSO says: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob. Good point. I also checked to see if the book was used as a reference in the articles and it is, so unless we are planning to use all of our refs as "see also" additions, the book is out of place in the see also section. Selecting one reference to highlight this way is also undue weight and creates a slant/POV in the article.(olive (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

Editorializing?

In the "Promotion" section, the last few sentences just seem like editorializing and have no direct baring on the topic of the section. I would like to propose that they be removed. What do other editors feel? Here is the text in question:

"Some followers consider the crew's presence to have precipitated the sudden departure of Harrison and Lennon and was the catalyst for their discontent.[234][235] John Lennon later told his wife that he felt that the Maharishi had, in her words, "too much interest in public recognition, celebrities and money" for a spiritual man.[236] By some accounts, rumors of sexual encounters with female students led The Beatles to believe that the Maharishi was a hypocrite who was abusing his power.[12] However, many of the people who were in India, including Harrison, McCartney and Cynthia Lennon, do not believe that the Maharishi made a pass at any woman.[237]"

Thanks, --BwB (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Does seem out of place in the Promo section. Can it be moved to a more appropriate part of the article? or to another article like MMY?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not think it is appropriate anywhere in this article. I think there are some points in the MMY article that cover the Maharishi's business acumen. I will take it pout of this article fo now and we can think if it can go somewhere else. --BwB (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm parking a copy of the deleted text here. I'll have a look around later and see if it can go somewhere else.

• Some followers consider the crew's presence to have precipitated the sudden departure of Harrison and Lennon and was the catalyst for their discontent. John Lennon later told his wife that he felt that the Maharishi had, in her words, "too much interest in public recognition, celebrities and money" for a spiritual man. By some accounts, rumors of sexual encounters with female students led The Beatles to believe that the Maharishi was a hypocrite who was abusing his power. However, many of the people who were in India, including Harrison, McCartney and Cynthia Lennon, do not believe that the Maharishi made a pass at any woman.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the text out for now. If there is consensus that the text can be in the article, then that is OK but I do not feel it belongs in the "Promotion" section. --BwB (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that'a backwards. There is consensus (implied) for this content in this article as is the case for content in any stable article. Removal of RS content needs consensus and I don't see consensus here. Because of the TM arbitration even removal to a talk page is likely considered removal from an article and inappropriate, although we do park content in other articles pending discussion. If the content is going to be changed substantially, moved, or removed it would need agreement here.(olive (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

OK I'll replace it and we can discuss it more here. Maybe a move to other article is the best thing, but I do not feel it adds anything to the current topic. --BwB (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OH! See that Olive already replaced it. Went straight to Talk page without ;looking at artcile first. --BwB (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries . I realized I'd commented here but didn't actually say I reverted. I'll open a discussion below.(olive (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

My asking (above) if the text could fit elsewhere was intended to open a discussion not as a green light to remove the text. That's why I parked the text on the talk page. So thank you Olive for reverting the deletion and instigating a further discussion. My general feeling is that the entire Promotion section needs a re-evaluation and that the text below that is proposed for discussion/deletion is only a part of the awkwardness that exists in the Promotion section and I don't think that removing the text under discussion below is going to solve that issue. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of disputed text

Text:

Some followers consider the crew's presence to have precipitated the sudden departure of Harrison and Lennon and was the catalyst for their discontent. John Lennon later told his wife that he felt that the Maharishi had, in her words, "too much interest in public recognition, celebrities and money" for a spiritual man. By some accounts, rumors of sexual encounters with female students led The Beatles to believe that the Maharishi was a hypocrite who was abusing his power. However, many of the people who were in India, including Harrison, McCartney and Cynthia Lennon, do not believe that the Maharishi made a pass at any woman.

• Some of this content has been disputed again [20] with the edit summary, "c'mon, this isn't related to promo of TM and this stuff is already in other articles". I don't think it matters if the text is repeated in other articles or not , but I'd say this text has nothing to do with promotion, and doesn't belong in a section on Promotion. And apologies BWB I completely forgot about this discussion. Unless someone can show how this newly reverted content is specifically about promotion, I'll leave it out of the article and not revert. I'l probably start looking at the rest of the content in the promotion section in the next few days to see if there are other such concerns.(olive (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

Comments:

OK Lets star with the first sentence: "Some followers consider the crew's presence to have precipitated the sudden departure of Harrison and Lennon and was the catalyst for their discontent." What has the "sudden" departure of these 2 gentlemen got to do with the topic? We are talking about the promotion of TM. The opinion of "some followers" 40 odd years ago does not add to the topic and is editorializing. This is my view. What do other editors feel? --BwB (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Article changes

This article is relatively incomplete and includes a fair amount of fragmented information. I'm starting to reorder content and will add content in attempts to fill the article out, create more neutrality giving a more complete picture of the TM organization. (olive (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

History

I've added a history section to this article by using the lead from the TM history article. As changes are made to the TM History lead, it is presently under discussion, those changes can be added here.(olive (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

I've adjusted the lead to accommodate the new history section. I have yet to check/ add/readd the sources. I'll do that tomorrow.(olive (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

Concerns

In working through this article and I haven't gone far, I have these concerns:

• Under Practice and tenets/Purity of the teaching/ TM technique probably belongs in the TM technique and the TM articles, while oddly TM movement is made of up of three isolated pejorative-to-the organization situations. This certainly doesn't give a neutral overview of this very large organization. I'm not sure what to do at this point but will deal with the issues in the next days. I'd love input if anyone is inclined.(olive (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC))
• Fourth paragraph of the lead: I'd suggest this is way too much detail for a lead or even for an article. Taking a single phrase from one author, for example, like plastic export Hinduism, does not represent the sources as a whole, and listing every descriptive word or phrase is not what good sourcing is about. However, saying the technique came out of Hinduism could be an accurate way of describing what's in some of the sources. I wonder if taking some broader categories and expanding them somewhat for the article body, and then summarizing those categories in the Lead, would be a better approach. (olive (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

The TM movement has been called a spiritual movement, a new religious movement, a "Neo-Hindu" sect, a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, "plastic export Hinduism", a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion", a millenarian movement, a world affirming movement, a new social movement and a guru-centered movement in books and the mainstream press, with concerns that it was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.Sources also say that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult. Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.

That is certainly one garbled and long-winded paragraph. The section is really long, actually the whole lead is, it seems to me, a mini article onto itself. I am not sure at this point but I think some of it is not about the TM movement at all.. Is there any way we can simplify it, limit it to sentences that refer to the TM movement specifically and are fully and appropriately discussed in the article itself?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify: This would also mean that if something does not belongs in this article but to a different one, you might want to "re-distribute" it, to the appropriate place. I think this may have happened because a lot of these TM related articles were spin offs from an original main one, so some of the information got inadvertently transported with other sections.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead, per WP:LEAD, is to summarize the article as a whole. Quoting a list of sound bites, out of their context, isn't summarizing, it's more like cherry picking and its misleading to the reader. The lead should say something more like: "The TM movement has been characterized in variety of ways by numerous reporters, authors, sociologists, new religious movement scholars, religious leaders, organizations and governments." Then the details of those characterizations can be given, in context, in the body of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So how should this problem be addressed, in the sentence Olive presented, for instance?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Organizations

I've done some re-arranging today in the Organizations section which was arranged in a somewhat arbitrary manner before. I have arranged them by the year of their founding, which is the most neutral way IMO. I have also added some new organizations and added text and refs. I still have more sources and text to add, so please be patient with the subsections that only have one or two sentences. I will fill them out. If other editors have a better idea as to how to arrange these organizations rather than by year, I am open to discussion. I think the category "Defunct organizations" was not based in fact as we do not know in many cases if these organizations have closed or are just dormant. I also find this list to be very USA-centric and would like to fix that also since its a worldwide movement and a lot of these organizations function in multiple countries I think, like SIMS, NLP etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point in that the organizations may be US centric, so thanks for dealing with that issue.(olive (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks, I'm going to continue to add content and sources to help with that and flesh out that section. My research shows that organizations like WPEC, SIMS and IMS, previously listed as defunct in this WP article, are still active outside the US. I've also found that the so called Maharishi Group appears to be a conceptual organization that mirrors the TM movement, rather than a legitimate corporation. And likewise its 1960's start date is also in question. So I'm going to move that sub-section to the bottom of the Organization section until sources can be found that actually legitimize it. I've started a discussion over at Maharishi Group. Meanwhile, I'm going to forge ahead boldly on the entire section, but please feel free to modify my work as you see fit, or raise points here for discussion. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Parking source

Parking this source which did not support the text it cited. Maybe it can be used for something else.Cite news|title=Judge dismisses most lawsuits in TM rift|first=Jason|last=Reagan|work=Watauga Democrat|url=http://www.wataugademocrat.com/topic.php?tid=0&sid=4209%7Cdate=June 11, 2004}}-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence on # of participants

I tried to improve the article with this edit. The prior version of the sentence was vague and weasel-ish. I added 6-7 new sources (some newspapers, some scholarly books) to the sentence and incorporated existing sources as much as possible. However these sources below were unverifiable. If anyone has access to them, please tell me what they say and we can re-add them to the sentence/article:

• Could not find. Incomplete citation-- "tens of thousands": New Religious Movements (University of Virginia) (1998)
• No preview on Google Books or Amazon. The book costs $415 to buy and is an encyclopedia anyway, which is not a preferred source per WP:RS.--Melton, J. Gordon, 1993, Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale Research Inc, 945–946
• This one is a 126 page "atlas" with "35 color maps". It sounds like an encyclopedic overview of a very broad topic and not a definitive source, and I cannot access it to see what it says.----- The State of Religion Atlas Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); pg. 35. O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); p. 35.

There are now 10 sources (news reports and scholarly books) citing the one sentence. If anyone feels that these sources above are crucial and should be in the article anyway, please feel free to re-add them at your descretion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

History

I don't see that this is History and I wouldn't mind moving it. Any thoughts on this? (olive (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

The TM movement, by virtue of its promoting a meditation technique that is said to increase relaxation, health, and clear thinking while reducing stress, was credited by the New York Times as being a "founding influence" on the "multibillion-dollar self-help industry".[24] According to science writer Sharon Begley of Newsweek magazine, Maharishi and, by extension, the researchers affiliated with Maharishi University of Management helped launch the field of mind-body medicine.[25]

Perhaps this content has more to do with "influence".(olive (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

The first section in this article was called "Influences". Which seemed to me to be to be a very odd, vague way to begin an encyclopedic article. So I changed the section title to history which is more traditional on WP. For example that is the structure used in the UNESCO article which is also a world wide, peace oriented organization. I see that you have created a sub-category called Influence. That's ok as a temp solution but let's discuss and maybe there is a better solution or place for this content. Do the sentences below accurately represent the source? There seems to be some OR and editorializing going on here.

Sentence 1

Perhaps this text needs to be revised per the source and moved to a Legacy section or the Promo section here?..... or the Marketing section of the TMT article?

• TMM article text: The TM movement, as a promoter of a meditation technique that is said to increase relaxation, health, and clear thinking while reducing stress, was credited by the New York Times as being a "founding influence" on the "multibillion-dollar self-help industry".
  • Source says: The TM movement was a founding influence on what has grown into a multibillion-dollar self-help industry, and many people practice similar forms of meditation that have no connection to the Maharishi’s movement.[21] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence appears to be OR. It makes a very broad inference drawing from the source, but the source doesn't actually say "and many people practice similar forms of meditation that have no connection to the Maharishi’s movement".--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops I mixed the source and the text, sorry about that. Rereading this correctly, I agree that the sentence is really more about promotion. Also, the Influence section is just too short in my view, to justify its existence. It could either be merged with another section ("promotion" for the 1st sentence, though the 2nd sentence does seem to be about "influence"), or it could be properly enlarged, assuming there is enough material to do this.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to remove the editorializing and OR. It now reads as follows: The Transcendental Meditation movement has been credited by the New York Times as being "a founding influence on what has grown into a multibillion-dollar self-help industry". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sentence 2

A revised version of this text (per the source) belongs in the MMY article I think.

• TMM article text: According to science writer Sharon Begley of Newsweek magazine, Maharishi and, by extension, the researchers affiliated with Maharishi University of Management helped launch the field of mind-body medicine.
• Source says: Whatever you think of the ‘White Album,’ give the Maharishi credit for helping launch what’s become a legitimate new field of neuroscience."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think you make a very good point. The source clearly speaks of Maharishi and, as I wrote above, it really does not make much sense to have a section that only has one tiny paragraph.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have ammended the sentence to read as follows:

• According to an article in Newsweek magazine, the Maharishi helped "launch what’s become a legitimate new field of neuroscience".

I've also included it in the Legacy section of the MMY article. However, since it's not about the TM movement and I'd like to remove it from this article. Any objections?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Graphic

TM organization in the United States, 1975

Click here to see larger version

• English: Organizational chart showing assets and organizations of the World Plan Executive Council, as of 1975
• Source: Based on a chart in "TM Takes on Corporate Look in U.S." Eugene L. Meyer, Washington Post, September 22, 1975 page A1
• Author: Will Beback[22]

The chart above appears to be the work of an involved editor "based on a chart" in a news article. Did the author of the chart add things that were not in the published chart? Does anyone have access to the chart in the Wash Post? Are there sources that confirm that this representation of the TM movement's organizational structure in 1975 is accurate? I think these issues should be examined. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't have anything that tells us this is accurate sourced or not. I'm not sure why we'd have potentially inaccurate content. Plus if this is "based on" a chart in a news article, isn't it WP:OR? I'd remove, too many concerns with this chart.(olive (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

"Yes, this looks be OR, but it might not be. I could not retrieve the source so I cannot determine whether the rendition is accurate. I think we should try to find the source before reaching a conclusion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke, I broke down and purchased the article from the WashPst. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the article but it appears you do not have email as an option on your User Page. I've sent a message to Olive also, in case she wants a copy. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Kbob, I looked at the article you emailed me and the chart appears to be quite accurate, one or two of the boxes may be positioned slightly differently, but the information is the same, as far as I can see. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's missing a few minor items but generally appears to be accurate per the source. I'd say its OK.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Text removed pending sources

I've removed this text as the citation leads to a D&B website that simply gives the name and address of the company. It could be any company such as the Maharishi clothing company for all we know. [23] So until further sources can be found that describe Maharishi Ltd as a company related to TM and the Maharishi. I'm parking it here.

• According to the Dun and Bradstreet website companies that are "related or similar" to Maharishi Ltd include Ayurveda Ltd., M S V Homes Ltd., Ideal Community & Sport Developments Ltd. --Source:Dun and Bradstreet report: Maharishi Ltd and related companies.(subscription required)
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Taken out of context?

• WP says: "According to Deepak Chopra "the Indian TM organization" is "centered around the Maharishi's nephews, Prakash and Anand Shrivastava"."
• Sources says: "The Indian TM organization, centered around Maharishi's nephews, Prakash and Anand Shrivastava, were adamant that no one in the movement should find out that Maharishi was grievously ill."

The way I read the source, it is saying that the objections to publicity about the Maharishi's illness were from the Indian movement but "centered around Maharishi's nephews". It is not saying the Indian movement is centered around the Maharishi's nephews. This is particularly evident when you look at the sentence in the context of the entire article [24] which is about the Maharishi's health crisis that took place over a period of a few days. Its not about the structure of his movement. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and I agree that the source is not, in that quote, discussing the structure of the TM organization in India. Assuming that would appear to be reading something into the quote. The quote does seem to indicate that the nephews in particular did not want anyone to find out about the illness, not that they were the focal point of the Indian organization.Coaster92 (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Text parked here

• According to an article in Newsweek magazine, the Maharishi helped "launch what’s become a legitimate new field of neuroscience".Begley, Sharon (February 18, 2008). "His Magical Mystery Tour". Newsweek: 18. "Whatever you think of the 'White Album,' give the Maharishi credit for helping launch what's become a legitimate new field of neuroscience".
• I have removed the above text from the article and placed it in the Maharishi article since it is clearly about the Maharishi. The source says: Whatever you think of the ‘White Album,’ give the Maharishi credit for helping launch what’s become a legitimate new field of neuroscience." I don't feel it is relevant to this article. Comments? Objections?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Seems fine to move it to MMY article,(olive (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
• The move makes sense. I think it could most likely be worked into this article in a relevant way as well, but your choice is well founded imo.Coaster92 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

KSCI Section

The mention of a loan by KSCI to the university is included twice in this section. I was not able to readily access the sources so I could not confirm whether there is one loan or two loans. Maybe someone knows the answer. Also, I would appreciate learning any tricks about how to easily access sources like these if anyone cares to so advise.Coaster92 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I've removed the duplication, which was my mistake anyway, as I worked on that section and its main article not too long ago. I've also included a quote from the source in the citation. I cannot post a URL since I am accessing the source via paid subscription to High Beam. If you have email set up on your account I can send you a transcript of the article. Regarding finding sources. I'll post something on your user page that might be helpful. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs work

I've placed a tag on the lead as it needs a lot of work. It seems to ignore about half the content in the article ie. the sections on TM, Organizations, Educational Insitutions, Meda, Promotion) and focuses mainly on the advanced programs of TM and its characterizations as a religion, cult etc. I don't have time to work on this now but I wanted to make others aware of this need. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note the prior, but recent, discussion on the lead at the top of this talk page called "Concerns".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Other Organizations

• Maharishi International University of Management --(June 5, 2001) "Mystic's followers wants own country", CNN News, Paramaribo, Suriname
• Institute for Fitness and Athletic Excellence--"Institute for Fitness and Athletic Excellence, which offers the technique to amateur and professional athletes."
• International Foundation for the Science of Creative Intelligence--AFSCI is the American branch of this international organization that teaches TM to the business community
• Maharishi Corporate Development Program--"Maharishi Corporate Development Program, the non-profit organization that teaches the TM program in business and industry"--

Also:Clarke, Peter (2006) Routledge, Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements,page 634

• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead for Transcendental Meditation in education article

Here is a draft intro section for TM in Education article, which might also do as a replacement for the TM in ed section in this article (with redirect to the article, of course).

The TM organization has founded or inspired elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools in various locations of the world including the USA, Europe, India, Australia, Africa and Japan.

The popularity of Transcendental Meditation in the United States received a major impetus from the enthusiastic participation of students at college campuses across the country in the 60’s and 70’s. Many elementary and secondary schools in the US have incorporated TM into their curriculum. Public reaction has ranged from concern to acceptance and praise. The organization established Maharishi University of Management in 1973 in Fairfield, Iowa. It offers accredited bachelors, masters and doctoral programs. On the same campus, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment offers kindergarten through grade 12. Its students have won a number of awards in state-wide, national and international academic competitions. In Europe, Maharishi European Research University has operated since 1975. It is located in Vlodrop, the Netherlands, where Maharishi Mahesh Yogi made his home from 1991 until his passing in 2008. In England, the government supports a Maharishi School. In India, between 90,000 and 100,000 students in 118 cities are enrolled in Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, and Maharishi Ideal Girls Schools, which offer elementary and secondary education. The TM organization operates several post-secondary institutions in India, including Maharishi Institute of Management, which has branches in five cities.

TM-based schools in South Africa and Australia have gained public recognition. --EMP (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EMP. I think it might be important to include the Malnak vs Yogi case here... as well the content I bolded is too specific in my mind, and also may be a bit on the self congratulatory side to be neutral. Just my opinion, of course.(olive (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

imo Keithbob's paragraphs are a good summary of the topic for purposes of this article and the lead for the new article. I also agree with EMP's addition and Olive's comment about the highlighted sentence being too specific for a summary/lead. Regarding Malnak, is it the case that current US school projects are in all private schools? I am not sure Malnak should be included in this article's summary. And as of right now, I don't think it should be included in the lead of the separate article because it seems the inclusion in either place gives undue weight to the decision. It might be appropriate to mention in the body of the separate article what the situation is concerning TM in US public versus private schools, discussing Malnak in this context.Coaster92 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, Olive and Coaster. Here's a 2nd draft. Will wait re: Malnak vs Yogi to see what others think.

The TM organization has founded or inspired elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools in various locations of the world including the USA, Europe, India, Australia, Africa and Japan.

The popularity of Transcendental Meditation in the United States received a major impetus from the enthusiastic participation of students at college campuses across the country in the 60’s and 70’s. Many elementary and secondary schools in the US have incorporated TM into their curriculum. Public reaction has ranged from concern to acceptance and praise. The organization established Maharishi University of Management in 1973 in Fairfield, Iowa. It offers accredited bachelors, masters and doctoral programs. On the same campus, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment offers kindergarten through grade 12, and has been fully accredited since 1987.

In Europe, Maharishi European Research University has operated since 1975. It is located in Vlodrop, the Netherlands, where Maharishi Mahesh Yogi made his home from 1991 until his passing in 2008. In England, the government supports a Maharishi School.

In India, between 90,000 and 100,000 students in 118 cities are enrolled in Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools, and Maharishi Ideal Girls Schools, which offer elementary and secondary education. The TM organization operates several post-secondary institutions in India, including Maharishi Institute of Management, which has branches in five cities.

TM-based schools in South Africa and Australia have gained public recognition.

--EMP (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer Coaster's question, I believe the current Quiet Time projects in the US are mainly in public schools. Note that Malnak only applies to the US, and the judgment only to New Jersey. In an article that is explicitly about school projects worldwide, it may not be relevant to include Malnak in the lead, given its narrow focus. I think we could omit "enthusiastic" in the proposed text, and also "gained public recognition" may sound promotional. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for your participation on this thread. I think this is a good discussion but I'd like to suggest that EMP move this thread to the Transcendental Meditation in education talk page. Meantime, I would really appreciate some input on the thread above this one which proposes that the education section of the this article (TM movement) be moved to the new TM in education article. Thanks to all. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

TimidGuy's statement about the scope and applicability of Malnak v Yogi is, as usual, completely wrong. The judgment is not limited to the State of New Jersey; the permanent injunction issued in that case is specifically binding on the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and any other political subdivision or agency of the US Federal Government. Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you point out a supporting source for this information Fladrif. Thanks.(olive (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Here's what the judgment says: The movement is permanently enjoined "1) From the teaching, aiding in the teaching (including but not limited to the providing of teaching materials), and the solicitation of any municipality, school board or other political subdivision or governmental agency of the State of New Jersey or of the Federal Government, for the purpose of promoting the teaching of any course of study which embodies and advocates any one or more of the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss-consciousness; 2) From the use of the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education--First Year Course -- Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment (or its substantial equivalent) and; 3) From the practice of the Transcendental Meditation or of the puja ceremony as heretofore practiced or performed (or the substantial equivalent of either), in any public school in the state of New Jersey...." I'll let others parse it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: THIS THREAD HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE Transcendental Meditation in Education talk page: [25] EMP (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Parking Source

I went ahead and removed this per the talk page discussion and I am parking the source here: According to Deepak Chopra "the Indian TM organization" is "centered around the Maharishi's nephews, Prakash and Anand Shrivastava". Chopra, Deepak (13 February 2008). "The Maharishi Years – The Untold Story: Recollections of a Former Disciple". Huffington Post. Retrieved 5 April 2010.Coaster92 (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Education section

Per this discussion on the TM technique talk page, I have split the educational content from that article into a new article called Transcendental Meditation in education. The new article (TM in education) now contains the entire Education section of this article, word for word. So I would like to suggest that we remove the education section in this article and leave behind a summary. Thoughts? Also, the new article needs a better lead summary. If anyone would like to do that or help me do it, please let me know. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as per consensus (KBob, Coaster92, TimidGuy, myself) at TM Technique article [26], it is a good idea to move the TM in Ed material out of both Transcendental Meditation Technique and this article, making its own article. But we need a summary here. Perhaps the draft lead for the new TM in Education article could be used as a starting point for a summary here. EMP (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree its a good idea to split off content. The ED section is long and possibly "weights" the article, so a summary here creates better length content for this article while moving the content from the Ed. section to its own article means we aren't losing any RS content. (olive (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

I agree that the education section of this article should be removed considering that the section is now included in a separate article.Coaster92 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be replaced with a summary of the main article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and make the move. Thanks. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed the following text (below) from the Purity of the Teaching section of the article per WP:NPF ie Albert Miller is not notable or an expert, and because the source does not mention 'purity of the teaching' and makes inferences from an off hand comment whose meaning and relevance are unclear and insignificant in my opinion.

• In 1992, Albert Miller, a former member, said that participants with doubts were asked to leave.-----D'Antonio, Michael. (1992). Heaven on earth. New York: Crown Publishers. p. 285. ISBN 0-517-57802-6.

Moreover, I removed the above text because:

• Per WP:NPF "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability"
• The source quotes Albert Miller as saying: "No one is lonely and isolated at MIU. People act very supportive, except if you have doubts. Then you have to leave."

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If placed text in the MUM article citing this quote saying: "At MUM no one is lonely there and everyone is very supportive" would this be an acceptable source for that kind of claim? of course not. Likewise vague claims of doubts and "have to leave" from a non-notable, non-expert are likewise unacceptable in my opinion. But I'm open to discussion. Comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)