Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

German booklet

Remove this text and source?

Quoting a San Francisco newspaper, the article says this: "TM tried to block' a 1980 report (released in 1989) by the West German government's Institute for Youth and Society which 'called TM a psychogroup.'" The source doesn't say anything beyond this. A scholarly article in Nova Religio discusses the New Religious Movement reports released by the German government beginning in 1979 and does an excellent job of putting them in context. It says that the government's booklets about specific new religious movements led to quite a number of lawsuits and constitutional discussion, following which the government's reports were revised and excluded speculation, rumors, and any matters that were unclear. The final booklets were simply informational, primarily relying on quotations from the NRMs themselves. TM was one of 7 groups the government looked at. I question whether the passing mention in the SF newspaper gives proper context and and whether it might be appropriate to rewrite this to add some general context, using the scholarly article as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nova Religion article should definitely be used. it is a proper secondary source and provides accurately verified information. I am glad this is being worked on; to me the paragraph, as it is now, could use some editing. It wold be nice if it could read in more flowing way, rather than the garbled juxtaposition of facts it appears to be at the moment. This of course is not directly related to the use of the source, but I hope the source help provide the section a with a clear presentation of the German events.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This source is cryptic and yet very specific in making two strong claims 1) TM tried to block a West German Govt report 2) The IYS called TM a psychogroup. Per WP:LIBEL This potentially libelous statement should be supported by more than one reliable source IMO. However I think it would be valuable to hear from uninvolved editors on this point. Should we consider taking it to RSN and getting other opinions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The IYS didn't call it a "psychogroup." That's one person's translation of the German language term. The author of the Nova Religio article translates it as "psychotherapy group." And the cryptic news report unfairly removes the TM lawsuit from the larger context. There were 7 reports, and all 7 groups sued the government. And they were successful, in that the government changed their approach. The scholarly article properly contextualizes the lawsuit. I think the in-depth scholarly source should be preferred over the cryptic sentence from a newspaper article. In fact, the latter is inaccurate because it somehow suggests that the despite the efforts of TM, the report was released, when according to the scholarly source, a very different report was eventually released. However, I can see how this material could be written using both sources, if necessary. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that Timid Guy has a point,if the source misrepresents the information it should either be replaced or at least we should use the second source to provide proper contest. A noticeboard is not a bad idea, but RSN would only speak to the reliability of the source, not the accuracy of the information within the source. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What's throwing me off here is that the news report says 1980, West German government's Institute for Youth Society...... while the Novo Religio says 1979 and German government, which is slightly different. Is there anyway to be sure that both articles are referring to the same report? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nova Religio article says it was a series of reports, which commenced in 1979. The TM report was apparently released in 1980. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Create new content from Nova Religio article

Thanks. I'll put a draft below. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is what the source says:

The most conspicuous activity of German governmental agencies has been the production of information booklets on new religions. One of the first of these was a published report by the Federal Government in 1979 to the Board of Petitions, which had called on the government to present a concept of how it was going to deal with certain problematic endeavours of new religions. The government’s report gave a general perspective on problems arising with new religious movements (NRMs) and specifically mentioned the Unification Church, the Children of God (Family of Love), ISKCON, Divine Light Mission, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation, and the Bhagwan Rajneesh movement. The legal part of the paper ruled out any prohibition of NRMs and emphasized the possibilities existing laws provide for eventual action.

This booklet as well as others distributed by state governments were challenged by lawsuits filed by the new religions affected. The courts then has to clarify the standard which the booklets needed to meet…….

The booklets themselves are of very mixed quality. Despite a large amount of legal information, the booklets aim to be accessible to the general public, and therefore often tend to oversimplify. Because of these court rulings, the booklets now mainly rely on quotations from publications of the religions in question.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There's also this material, which is the basis of part of my proposed text:

This booklet as well as others distributed by state governments were challenged by lawsuits filed by the new religions affected. The courts then had to clarify the standard which the booklets needed to meet. They affirmed that authorities generally are bound by the precept of neutrality and tolerance, the principles of proportionality, requirement, and appropriateness, and the prohibition of excess.21 While accurate factual statements are permissible, matters which are yet unclear are excluded, as are speculations and rumors. In the latter case, even speculations that appear as quotations from other sources must be excluded, since including them could lend them an air of authenticity.22

TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft of new version

"Beginning in 1979 the German government released a number of booklets about problems arising from seven new religious movements in Germany, including TM. These booklets were challenged in German courts, which ruled that the booklets must only include factual information and exclude speculation, rumors, and matters that are unclear. The booklets were then re-released primarily containing quotations from materials of the organizations themselves."

This would replace the following sentence in the article: "TM tried to block' a 1980 report (released in 1989) by the West German government's Institute for Youth and Society which 'called TM a psychogroup.'" TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Timid Guy, can you provide a link to the Novo Religio source? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's here.[1] But there's a paywall. Send me an email, and I'll send you a pdf. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

TG would you mind sending me the pdf as well. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC))

TG I got the article thanks...I hope you'll forgive me but I've created two sections for this discussion as I think we have two separate issues here. One, the proposed removal of sourced text (see above) and two, a proposed summary of how a new source (the Novo Religio article) should be summarized. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a new version that combines both sources:

"Beginning in 1979 the German government released a number of booklets about problems arising for seven new religious movements in Germany, with the German term for these organizations variously translated as "psychogroups" and "psychotheraphy groups." These organizations, including TM, filed lawsuits trying to block the reports. The courts ruled that the booklets must only include factual information and exclude speculation, rumors, and matters that are unclear, and the booklets were re-released primarily containing quotations from materials of the organizations themselves."

Eager to know if this is okay.TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good summary of both sources. You have my support for this version.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion, so I am just getting up to speed. One question I have is whether it is accurate to adopt the reference "new religious movement" without mentioning that this is the German government's term. IMO the text should read: ....organizations that the German government termed "new religious movements."Coaster92 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that the German government used this term. The source uses it as a generic term to describe these seven organizations. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Series of edits

I read through entire article today (except "marketing section" and made series of edits today, to summarize, create flow and further insure NPOV etc. Please take a look at what I've done and see if there is anything you disagree with. If so, please change it or bring it here for discussion. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick read through of the article and overall imo the program and its reception seem well covered. I did find a few minor copy edits and I made those. Two sentences seemed to need minor edits but I was not able to view the sources. Perhaps you are familiar with those and can confirm the proper edit:

Under Social Programs, third paragraph, second sentence, is there a verb missing: "The program, administered by the non-profit Enlightened Sentencing Project and the program has received endorsements from several judges, including Judge Philip Heagney, Judge Henry Autrey, and others from the Missouri District, Federal, and Supreme Courts." Should this be re-written: "The program is administered by the non-profit Enlightened Sentencing Project and has received endorsements from several judges, including Judge Philip Heagney, Judge Henry Autrey, and others from the Missouri District, Federal, and Supreme Courts." Under SCI 1971, first paragraph, third sentence: "Author, Philip Goldberg describes it as Vedanta philosophy that has be translated into scientific language." Should this read “been translated” instead of “be translated”?Coaster92 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct on both counts. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and made the edits. Thanks KB.Coaster92 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the NPOV clean up tag

Given the concerted efforts and reviews given the article in recent months by myself, Coaster92 and Littleolive oil, does anyone see any reason to maintain the NPOV tag on the article? If there are any remaining issues I'd like to ID and address them as per WP:TC: Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The history behind the NPOV tag is that it was placed on the article in August 2011 by Timid Guy [2]. It was then removed by me in July 2012 [3] and then replaced by me a few days later[4] after input from Arjayay.[5] All of Arjayay's feedback was discussed at length and changes were made to to adjust for tone and other issues. Discussion was had and edits were made to address the issues raised by an IP [6] and many of Arjayay's concerns have been addressed such as the the article's length, excessive number of quotes, a further review by Coaster92 for tone, and more trimming here. There was also a very careful review of the lead for NPOV. [7] Does anyone have any remaining concerns? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The concerns that I had when I originally placed the tag have been addressed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm now happy as well - I have been watching from the sidelines since June - but trying to keep up with, let alone comment on, over 300 edits was too much. Congratulations to those who managed to restore an NPOV, even though, considering their detailed knowledge of the subject, I suspect that many, or most, are advocates or practitioners of TM.

COI operates at many levels - but although direct, commercial, COI has many obvious problems, Wikipedia relies on knowledgeable "fans" of many subjects to write and improve articles about their interest or passion. "Disinterested editors" cuts both ways - we cannot rely on total bystanders, who do not know anything about a subject, to know, or find, the sources that an article needs, nor to spend a lot of their time on a subject that does not interest them.

As removal of a neutrality tag by (one of) those editors who improved the article could be seen as COI, and as I am the person whose criticism caused it to be added back, I hope you don't mind if I am WP:BOLD and remove the tag.
Arjayay (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I'm pleased you feel that the article is now compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move Marketing section

As I and Arjayay have mentioned before the Marketing section seems inappropriate for this article. If you look at it here you will notice that many of the sentences say the Maharishi did this or the Movement did that etc. This section is not talking about the meditation technique but rather about things the leader and organization did. Also the TM movement article already has a section called Promotion so I think it should be combined with that section and if needed some parts that are specific to the Maharishi can then be moved to that article. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. There's no point in having a constellation of articles if each one is a mishmash of the same stuff. Better to parcel out the content to the relevant articles, so that the reader gets a specific angle in each article. I was thinking possibly some could go in the History article, but your suggested venues may be better. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree: let's get it all sorted out properly. EMP (talk 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be the nay sayer, but how the technique is marketed seem highly relevant. I'm not saying we have the right content in this article to describe that, but just that it is connected. The real issue is and always has been, seems, where should the line be drawn the line drawn between the technique and content connected to the technique... so far that line seems to be arbitrary dependent on who is editing at the time. We might look at that more general issue first before moving content.(olive (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

It's not a matter of whether it's relevant or connected. All of the related articles are relevant and connected, such as History of Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation movement. The question is parceling out the content to various locations. In general, we've been trying to avoid duplicating content. Since the Transcendental Meditation movement article already has a substantial section on promotion, It would make sense that this article be about the technique itself, and the bulk of the material on promotion of the technique be in the article about the organization that promotes it. TimidGuy (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the past content has been repeated in the many different articles, so if that is not going to be the case and if we are setting a precedent for that, I think that has to be stated. And I disagree whole heartedly; it is a matter of connection and relevance and the missing aspect of that which is where do we decide the relevance and connection is too distant to include. :O)(olive (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I think the decision should be made keeping in mind the number of articles on TM-related subjects already in existence. Had there been only one TM article, as opposed to a gazillion, then the information would have gone to that one article. But there are several. It makes sense, therefore, to decide in a logical way what each article should contain, so that they do not become repetitions of the same information. This last point, I agree with Olive, is one that we should state so that it is clear, but on the other hand, what would be the point in having many articles each repeating the same information?

In this particular case, we have an article about the TM technique and one about the TM Movement. In view of this, I see the TM technique article as the one that discusses the technique, and therefore I would move the marketing section to the TM Movement article. This is because the TM Movement is described in Wikipedia as the organization, or number of organizations, responsible for the teaching and promotion of TM-related programs, including the TM Technique. I agree that I am making an arbitrary division, but it is dictated by the fact that an article on the TM Movement already exists. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles are stand alone, so that may be reason to repeat certain kinds of information. I'm not against parceling out content to the most appropriate articles, I just think we have to be clear about where the line is drawn that causes editors to make a decision to move content, in part because the repetition of content has been a contentious issue in the past. To my mind there are multiple sections in this article that do not relate any more directly than the marketing section, "Government" for example. Why are we not moving those sections? (olive (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I definitely agree with you that if we decided the "Marketing" section did not belong in this article, then neither should the "Government" section be there. They both have more to do with the Movement's interaction with its environment than with the practice itself. Drawing a clear cut line would be nice, though I suspect it may have to be done on an article-by-article basis. I would think editors need to decide what the article is really about and then go from there. If this article is mainly about providing an illustration of the technique, then sections about marketing and governmental reception do not belong there.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My proposal was inspired by the feedback we got from Arjayay some months ago. In his mind, the article is about the technique not about the organization that promotes, advertises and implements the technique. It was with this in mind that we moved the Education section to its own article. This proposal is a continuation of that. However, some duplication will always occur from article to article and I think the way we've been handling that at the TM and TMM articles is to have a summary (usually the lead of the mother article) and a Main Article wikilink that links to the mother article. I was planning to do the same here. Does that make it any more palatable for you Olive? As for the Government section, it is a subsection of Characterization of the technique and as such it seems to me to be relevant to this article but I think we should start a separate thread or sub thread if we want to have that discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I would still prefer to see the marketing section go somewhere else, so I like Kbob's proposal. I reread the Government section in light of Kbob's comment and I can see what he means, though I could go either way, keeping the section in the current article or maybe removing it. We can start a new discussion on that once the current issue is resolved, but if we do keep it, I would recommend changing the name of the section so that it is clear from the outset that this is a subsection of the Characterization section. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can go with a consensus on this whether I agree or not.:O)(olive (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC))

It looks like Kbob, TimidGuy and I think the section should be moved, did I get this correctly? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus the feedback we got from uninvolved Arjayay, who questioned its relevance to this particular article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to move the marketing content so I am OK with that move, as well. Go for it! (olive (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC))

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Parking sourced content for discussion

This stuff was in the SCI/Characterizations section and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the are not specifically about SCI. Can we use these someplace else?

• A 2009 research review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry says that "despite the criticisms (that) its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously."ref>Dakwar, Elias and Levin, Francis R. (2009) The Emerging Role of Meditation in Addressing Psychiatric Illness, with a Focus on Substance Use Disorders, Harvard Review</ref
• In a 1980 book, Neurophysiologist Michael Persinger wrote that "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" .ref name="Harvey1993" .[and ] ref name=Persinger>Persinger, Michael A.; Carrey, Normand J.; Suess, Lynn A. (1980). TM and cult mania. North Quincy, Mass.: Christopher Pub. House. ISBN 0-8158-0392-3. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The main purpose of the first one (2009 review) seemed to be to balance a statement by James Randi, which denied any scientific basis for claims of benefit for TM. But since that statement is now gone (because it both had nothing to do with SCI, and was considered non-compliant with MEDRS), there would no longer seem to be any purpose for this statement about TM's medical claims being taken seriously. Also, as you say, the statement has no bearing on SCI. I can't think of another place this statement would go, with advantage to that article. The same point has been brought out in different ways in the other articles, I believe.
• Re: Persinger, I agree--the statement does not apply to this section on SCI, but rather to discussion of TM and TM marketing. As to where else it could go--same reaction as to above text. There's already lots on the TM orgns use of science in bringing TM to the public. Also, the quotation seems weak. The phrase, "Science has been used as a sham for propaganda" is unskillful prose. I think he means that the TM orgn has made a sham of science in its marketing. Even if grammatically correct (which is doubtful) the phrase is unfamiliar and a head-scratcher. Not up to standard, IMHO. EMP (talk 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Cult Mania could possibly go in the Marketing section but I'd like to see the context of the quote first. I think I can get the book at my library. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote is actually from an article in the Ottawa Citizen. The article is ostensibly quoting the book, but given the problematic syntax, it would be a good idea to locate the quote in the book to see if it's accurate. Apart from this, I question Persinger's 1980 book from a Christian publisher as a source. It goes into detail criticizing the research, faulting every area. But that was 33 years ago. In the intervening years, the research has been published in top medical journals, has been funded by NIH, and has been recognized as playing a role in developing the new field of mind/body medicine. TM is included in standard medical textbooks. I would think that a statement by Dakwar in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry would have more weight that an outdated book from a Christian publisher that claims the research is a sham. TimidGuy (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I finally got a hold of the book and here is the quote from page 35:

• The Maharishi insists that his meditational states can be verified by science (rationalism) but at the same time he emphasizes the importance of inner experience, which cannot be verified easily. Within the format of this peculiar postulation, TM scientists have engaged in sham research. The have intended to "scientifically prove" the nebulous and indefinite statements of the Maharishi by spanning vast conceptual distances between concise data and the diffuse wonder of words of mystical philosophy.

Therefore the current text: "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" seems grossly overstated and inaccurate. Also, the topic of SCI is not mentioned until page 92 and receives only a minor mention. I recommend that the following text be placed in the Marketing section:

• According to the 1980 book, TM and Cult Mania, scientists associated with TM have attempted to prove the Maharishi's concepts by uniting scientific data and mystical philosophy.

Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that this source has been superseded by the many research reviews that include research on TM and report that TM does indeed result in a wakeful hypo metabolic state, does indeed find EEG signatures that are unique, does indeed affect body chemistry in specific ways. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't provide $25 million in funding over a period of 20 years for "sham research." The early studies, according to a research review published by the New York Academy of Sciences, are now considered classic. The study by Wallace in Science published in 1970 has been cited over 900 times. This research has a solid footing in the scientific literature, and we shouldn't give any weight, in my opinion, to a 1980 book published by a small Christian press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns ie that it is not a reliable for discounting the large body of research on TM because its was published in 1980 and because the source makes a sweeping statement and provides no details about what it is referring to ie. SCI, health studies, unified field claims etc. At the same time I think it has validity as a third party opinion about the way some scientists associated with TM have spoken about TM using examples from science to justify metaphysical theory. So my suggestion is to place the text I've recommended above, in the TM movement article under the section "Characterizations of marketing" since the Marketing section has already been moved from this article to the TM movement article. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no response for four days I have add the text as I suggested above in the TMM Reception to Marketing section [8] if there is still disagreement, then TG you can revert and we can continue discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to amend lead

• Currently in the lead: It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced,[4][5][6] and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques,[7] with over 340 peer-reviewed studies published.[8][9] Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive[10][11][12][13] to clinically significant.[14][15][16][17][18]
• I think undue weight is being given to a very small section of the article and I recommend removing the second sentence. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. First, content on the research was so extensive that it was originally split off from the main TM article of the time. The research section in this article now links to an entire article's worth of content. Second, the second sentence is merely the briefest of summaries of the entire range of the research which gives the reader simple, but critical information on the research findings. I suggest strongly that the sentence in the lead stay in the article.(olive (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

What I would suggest given that the sentence appears twice in the article is to expand it slightly for the research section, then leaving the summary now in the lead, in place. The same content appears three times in the TM article and that's another issue. I 'd add that this content replaces inaccurate content that was repeated over many articles. The sentence under discussion simply replaced each repetition of that inaccurate sentence. It is time to trim that kind of repetitive content in my opinion as I had suggested in the past (olive (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

Since we have a TM research article, I am not sure that expanding the research section here is warranted. If we left it as is, the research section is quite small and it does not, in my opinion, warrant a sentence on research in the lead. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a sentence at the most. In my mind the section is long and the content so extensive it had to be split off. This indicates content that is highly significant. A slightly longer explanation would be warranted. (olive (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

The current summary is quite good. I'd hate to start going into more detail in this article, because there are so many facets of the research to deal with and so many different findings. If you have a specific idea of what should be added, perhaps draft some text. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I haven't explained very well. I am suggesting a very slight extension of the sentence that has been repeated, or possibly saying the same thing in slightly different words with a bit of extension. I think that sentence belongs in the lead, but it shouldn't be repeated (or should it ), especially that it appears 7 times in the TM articles. We can either remove it or explain it a little more. I can't see this as changing the section very much or extending it.(olive (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

• • • • I have moved this discussion to TM [9] which is the mother article, to centralize the discussion This is a larger issue than this content appearing in one article. Once we have looked at the overall picture then we could come back and solve this problem. Otherwise this has become very confusing.(olive (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

Parking text that needs verification

• and in one of his books, the Maharishi refers to TM as "a path to God". --Meditations of Maharishi. p. 59

This text has a an incomplete citation and there had been no response to request for quote made 7 months ago. If a source can be found it can be added back to the Characterizations section -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've added the reference for the book which I found on Amazon. The quote probably deserves some contextual material. I'll let Kbob put this back in since he parked it.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

• • Ok, thanks, now we have a complete citation but Amazon doesn't provide a preview to verify the text or its context. Shall we re-add it and place a "quotation needed" tag on it?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So we still have the problem that a request for a quotation was made 7 months ago and the text referenced in the citation cannot be verified on Amazon or Google Books. What should be done? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I"ve replaced the text including the "quote needed" tag which was placed there in June 2012. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The book does say, "Transcendental Meditation is a path to God." But it would be better if we included some of the context. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and Olive mentioned this also. However I don't have access to the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Omni content:Mantras

There was agreement to not include the mantras published in Omni [10]. Given that agreement I'd like to move the content here for further discussion. If there is good reason to put the content back in it could be considered here now.(olive (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

In 1984, these 16 mantras were published in Omni magazine based on information from "disaffected TM teachers":

Ages	0 - 11	12 - 13	14 - 15	16 - 17	18 - 19	20 - 21	22 - 23	24 - 25	26 - 29	30 - 34	35 - 39	40 - 44	45 - 49	50 - 54	55 - 59	60 - up
Mantra	eng	em	enga	ema	aeng	aem	aenga	aema	shirin	shirim	hiring	hirim	kiring	kirim	sham	shama

Una Kroll

I'm reading through Una Kroll's book, The Healing Power of Transcendental Meditation, and am impressed with her language and explanations which are very approachable. I'll add content to the articles from her book because I can see her view as easy to follow and understand. She is both a medical doctor and proclaimed Christian and so seems to be in a very good position to give a somehwat neutral, although personal, of course, view of the technique.(olive (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

I skimmed that book a couple months ago and felt that it was a good source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to article

An editor added the following text to the TM article. I removed it, because it seemed more appropriate to this article.

The following quotation sums up the fundamental principles of Transcendental Meditation: "The fundamental premise of the psychology of fulfillment is that within every person exists a seemingly inexhaustible center of energy, intelligence, and satisfaction... To the extent that our behavior depends on the degree of energy and intelligence available to us, this center of pure creative intelligence may be described as that resource which gives direction to all that we experience, think and do."

Should this text be added to the article? TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the text to the article. Is the placement of the text ok? It seems to fit in with the general flow of the article.Matipop (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matipop and welcome to the TM topic area. I see that you are a new editor and you may not be aware that the opening paragraphs of an article (called the lead or lede) are supposed to be a summary of the main points from the entire article per WP:LEAD. So I've moved it to the Theoretical Concepts section and gave it an inline attribution. Meanwhile, welcome to the article and topic area and please feel free to edit the article and/or bring your thoughts, suggestions or questions here to the talk page for discussion. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Keithbob. Thank you for the tip. Still learning the ropes and its been a pretty interesting time so far. Learning something new everyday. :) Matipop (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have this at the beginning of the article?

This statement appears at the top of the article:

This page is about the technique. For the organization, see Transcendental Meditation movement.

Isn't it self-evident that this article is about the technique? That is, after all, the title of the article. It's unlikely that someone would arrive at this article expecting to read about the TM movement. The most likely landing point for a reader would be the main TM article, and that very clearly directs readers to the TM technique and TM movement articles. Seems like this statement isn't needed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar statement referring back to this article on the TM movement article. We should either remove both or keep both. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to my deleting both? TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The slightly clumsy statements are out while the links were kept. Nice! (I started responding to this point, only to see on inspection that it had been carried out. So this is just to close this Talk point somewhat.) Geke (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Geke and welcome to the TM topic area! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome and the beer! (Virtual beer goes down well with me...) In fact, I've been here before, so I know it's good to remain relaxed! I was wondering how this page could be so short, until I read (just now) that a bot is/may be moving stuff into an archive after three months. So I could have left the above alone and it would have disappeared by itself, I guess... Geke (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Geke (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome and yes the bot archives the talk page after 90 days. A good system! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Simpler is better. Thanks for the removal. David Spector (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

Much of this article is out of the scope set by its title. The extensive portions on courses, schools, marketing, organizations, etc may belong in TM movement, but not here. Some serious trimming is needed. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Content on the technique itself could be very limited. I would tend to agree with you, though. The boundary of where the technique info ends and where the technique is an integral part of something else established around the technique has never been easy to see. Editors have had different views on that. Its a discussion-worthy topic.(olive (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC))

On second thought, perhaps transcendental meditation business or transcendental meditation industry might be a better place for all that? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This article seems to have a positive bias towards TM

It intentionally uses vague language and generous omissions to cloak the spirit of the scientific findings. As far as I know -the scientific consensus is that the benefits of TM are no different from virtually any other type of 'meditation', and are simply the result of 'relaxation' and that similar results can be attained by engaging in anything you find relaxing like massages or even taking a nap.

I only have a cursory familiarity with TM so I'm not going to edit anything but someone should -it is very misleading to anyone otherwise unfamiliar with the topic and it seems this was done quite intentionally.

It may be true that most people think "that the benefits of TM are no different from virtually any other type of 'meditation'" but I don’t believe there is "scientific consensus" for that. Not mentioned in the article is, for example, that the AHA has stated that among all meditation techniques only TM may be called effective in lowering high blood pressure. In general, I think the article does a good job in showing the various views, although not in giving them proper weight: 300 peer-reviewed "positive" studies are presented as almost outweighed by only a few "negative" ones. But I can live with that, as long as the numbers of people learning TM are up :) --Geke (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Path to God

I failed to say something about this earlier, and in the meantime a bot moved it into the archives, so I hope it's OK if I just copy the last bit here:

OK, I"ve replaced the text including the "quote needed" tag which was placed there in June 2012. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The book does say, "Transcendental Meditation is a path to God." But it would be better if we included some of the context. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and Olive mentioned this also. However I don't have access to the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to check on this quote because it didn't sound like Maharishi's way of talking about God. An acquaintance of mine has OCR'ed the above-mentioned book and the sentence is really in there, but I feel it's not a statement in itself, but rather a simplified repetition of the previous sentence: "Transcendental Meditation is a way to God realization."

So to sum it up, I'd prefer if we could replace the quote by the first sentence. Is a scan of a book good enough as a source? I could email the person who scanned the printed book to see if he still has it, but that may be too indirect too? Geke (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't have to provide a URL or a "scan" or file of a source. Citing it is enough. In this case the book at hand is out of print and not commonplace but it is available for those are willing to look around or buy used on Amazon etc. So you can just go ahead and cite the book without providing a scan of it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, we cannot accept a scan of a book, as (unless the book is very old) this would be a breach of copyright. Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another good point. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On another note.... the section is about the view of religious leaders on TM. It seems like the quote from MMY is out of place. Once we determine the context of what the Maharishi was saying, can the quote or reference be moved to another more appropriate section? or maybe even to the Maharishi's bio? Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, your intuition is right on: I think quoting from this book is not a good idea, because 1. it's like a transcript and 2. it's very old, meaning not typical for Maharishi's way of talking later on. I put a sample paragraph here:

So when good life, which is the result which comes after God realization, when that was held as a path it never was found to be leading to God. Something that results from God realization, if we imagine that that is a path, is just imagination. It is not available, it will come to us when we have realized God. In the hope of God realization if we imagine being good, being good and thereby come to God, where is the path? Being good is not a path, it is the result of God realization. The path to God realization is this meditation. Transcendental meditation is a path to God. After realization of God, after gaining God consciousness, after gaining familiarity with that which is all right and controls the whole creation and evolution, after contact with the Almighty, one spontaneously becomes right and righteous and all life supporting. So when the results of God realization were supposedly thought to be the path then nobody could find a path and when nobody could find a path nobody could find the goal. Very simple. This is what the religions have made a mess of the way to God realization. God realization is simple, and that was thought to be very difficult.

as a demonstration. (The file I found is not a scan, but a PDF-text file--typed or probably OCRed, corrected and newly formatted--so I can't be sure how accurate it is, but it looks well-done.) As a conclusion, I'd say that this quote is not representative and would better be taken out.

I assume the above unsigned comment is from User:Geke.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree its taken completely out of the context of an intellectual and philosophical discourse. Placing it in context would require summarizing the entire paragraph above, and giving it undue emphasis and WP:WEIGHT. So if you would like to remove it, I would have no objections. Thanks for following through on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think another relevant point is related to MMY's definition of God: in his standard list of the higher states of consciousness available to anyone, state 6 is usually called God Consciousness. But this is not a state where one suddenly meets God, as defined by Christianity or another religion. The term "God Consciousness" actually means seeing subtle or divine values in ordinary daily sense perceptions. This reaches fulfillment in state 7, called Unity Consciousness, where the Absolute or unchanging nature of life, which was first realized in state 5, is cognized on the level of sense perceptions. What this all means in terms of individual experience is colored by that individual's previous history and experiences. It is doubtful that we suddenly meet an all-powerful white man with a beard. Maharishi used the word God because it seemed ideal for describing the highest that humans could perceive, and the joy of this perception. He most certainly did not mean it in a conventional religious sense. Religions have a valid place in revealing the Divine as they understand it based on revelation; they have nothing to fear from MMY or TM, which deals simply with the development of full human consciousness. David Spector (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

After more than two years, I see this has not been concluded. So I’m now removing that quote. (Yes, the unsigned stuff above was mine, as Keithbob assumed.)

Re. David Spector’s comment, I could add that Maharishi calls perception in God Consciousness "celestial" and explains that one sees how the Creator works in everything in that state. So it’s "God-appreciating Consciousness", not "God’s Consciousness"! Maharishi has made it very clear at other occasions that "man is man and God is God"...--Geke (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of religious leaders

The list of religious leaders endorsing the TM technique includes almost only US people, as far as I can see (one priest from Ireland). Is that intentional, or could others be added? What's the criteria for including people here? Some of the ones in the current list have nice links like YouTube clips, others have no link at all so I'm wondering if they are useful to have in. Geke (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The English WP tends to be US-centric but that is something we want to avoid whenever possible. In notice that several of the clergy and religious leaders mentioned are not from the U.S. For example Michael Ramsey is English, Jaime Sin is from Manilla, Placide Gaboury is Canadian, William Johnston is Irish, and I believe Kevin Joyce and Keith Wollard are also Canadian. If you are aware of other religious leaders who have expressed an opinion on TM then you could add them, assuming they are reliably sourced.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's better than I thought after all. I had a very strong video in mind, but it's about a priest in Colombia, so he is Spanish-speaking, and all other people mentioned (except Cardinal Xin maybe) are English-speaking, so I dunno... Geke (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think what we would need to include him in that section is a reliable secondary source that gives his views on TM and religion. The You Tube video you've cited doesn't say that. This Huff Post article [11] also doesn't clearly state Father Meija's views on TM and religion even though it says he uses TM in his shelters.

• Father Gabriel Mejia, a Catholic priest, has been sheltering street children in Columbia, South America, for over 25 years..............As part of their rehabilitation, the children learn the Transcendental Meditation technique.

So I think we have to keep looking for a valid source before we consider including him in that section. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Father Mejia may be deliberately low-profile about this in order not to irritate, and I've started to think that the safety of his projects is more important than having his name added in this Wikipedia article... I've once seen a version of this YouTube clip where he is doing the TM initiation ceremony, but it seems that was taken out. In the current version he just talks about "meditation", and nowhere did I find him speaking about the relationship between religion and TM. On his project's home pagehttp://foundationclaret.org/ there is a video of him talking to an audience of only TM practitioners, yet he uses the word "TM" only after a reminder by the interpreter. Geke (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So then we can just leave him out until we come across a reliable source that gives his view on TM and religion. Thanks for your research and efforts to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for //religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mum.edu/msvs/Chandler1.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing confusing statements in article summary

Before continually restoring the edit, please source the following uncited statement per WP:CS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.

"Proponents have postulated that one percent of a population (such as a city or country) practicing the technique daily may affect the quality of life for that population group. This has been termed the Maharishi effect."

I am not challenging the veracity of the statement; it deserves a reference in the lead because it purports to be statistical data, and without a reference it is a confusing statement for readers without or with only a cursory knowledge of the topic, who will read the summary but not necessarily the expanded sections (and the expanded sections are long). All the other statements in the lead are cited. This can be addressed with a single inline reference. 124.148.152.143 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (Edited for clarity 124.148.152.143 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC))

Please feel free reference it. We don't have to cite refs in a lead but if you wish to go ahead. And I, by the way have no problem in leaving it out of the lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC))

I don't mind uncited text in the lead, although mixing cited and uncited text can cause confusion. The real reason to omit the text in question is that it violates NPOV (specifically WP:PSCI) because it lacks mainstream context. Alternatively, we could keep it while adding mainstream context. Wikipedia is not a platform for uncritically reporting fringe claims. Manul ~ talk 11:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this different from the other TM page

Transcendental_Meditation exists - why not merge the two? Smooth Henry (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)