Skepticism C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources

The contextual information on Park seems consistent with other contextual information added, on researchers, for example. Park is a proud and outspoken skeptic so I can't see that the information is biased or POV. Other contextual information is not sourced either, but is extrapolation. We should be consistent.(olive (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I can't find any mention of Park in this article at all, either now or in the last few days, so what contextual information are you talking about? Am I missing something? Woonpton (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was flipping back and forth between articles... This post should be on the Hagelin talk page. Sheesh. Apologies.(olive (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Should this section be deleted now? David spector (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need.(olive (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No need to delete the section, but at the same time, the usual practice is not to remove posts after they have been responded to. I have restored it. Woonpton (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a number of gross errors in the "selection" section which are in need of rectification.

The first sentence is incorrect. "According to Russell, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Vedic tradition." While it is not uncommon to hear it alleged and often repeated by TM meditators and even TM teachers that the TM mantras or "sounds" are "taken from the ancient Vedic tradition", none of the TM mantras occur in the Rig Veda! They are all purely from tantric sources, as several monosyllabic, seed-mantra dictionaries attest. The purpose of an encyclopedia article should not be to further false information, just because it has been repeated many times before. I propose I thorough edit of this section (and really all the mantra references) based purely on the root texts of mantra science (Skt. Mantra-vidya).--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "According to Russell..." is sourced and therefore ligitimate for Wiki. Also, there is more to Vedic tradition than Rig Veda. --BwB (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigWeeBoy. Unfortunately the "source" contains false information. It's a "bad" source. I will gladly source an original Sanskrit source, that reveals the information in this section to be false. I can even post all the TM mantras, as needed. If you can find a Vedic source, I'd encourage you to post it! Otherwise, such fallacious claims should not be on the entry. Best of luck.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph also contain information which is unsupported myth:

"William Jefferson in The Story of the Maharishi, explains the importance of the "euphonics" of mantras. Jefferson says that the secrets of the mantras and their subsequent standardization for today's teachers of the technique were unraveled by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi after his years of study with his own teacher, Guru Dev (Brahmananda Saraswati) so that selection is foolproof, and that the number of mantras from the Vedic tradition, which could number in the hundreds, have been brought by the Maharishi to a minimum number."

This should be removed as there is no evidence that the Maharishi learned mantra-shastra, the scriptures behind mantra use (quite the opposite) and there is no evidence he learned these from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. In fact Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was very caste conscious and it is therefore highly unlikely he would have instructed a low caste scribe and secretary in this wisdom. The fact that he claims the TM mantra are from the Vedas (!) should disqualify his statements as false and misleading. Such claims are part of TM mythology and story-making, and are not within the realm of factual and scholarly research.

Recent evidence from transcribed teachings also shows that the way Swami Brahmananda Saraswati gave out mantras is at variance with TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not report the "Truth". Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So if we have one source that says the sky is blue and another that says it's grey, we don't look outside our windows and decide which is correct. Instead, we report both views with appropriate weight according to their prominence.

So in this case, we probably wouldn't remove the Jefferson "myth", but if there are other views of the matter then we should include those as well, and if they are more prominent then we should devote more space to them. OTOH, if we investigate a source and find that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards then we may remove it entirely. The usual reasons sources do not qualify is that they are not independent or subject to editorial oversight, such as self-published sources. Since Jefferson was published by a major publisher, that's unlikely to apply. Are the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati transcripts published? Are there other views of the mantras that we're omitting?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear using this Jefferson quote is merely reporting the type of hearsay and stories that have come to surround the Maharishi. There is no evidence to support this story, in fact it flies in the face of what most TM teachers are aware of. The mantras are selected based on age. It is not unusual for uncareful authors, like Jefferson (who I had never heard of), to take TM Org mythology and simply repeat it, as if it was fact, without any verfiable story behind it. The utter absence of mantra wisdom (Skt. mantra-vidya) in the TM Teacher Training Course is the most obvious of example of why stories such as these are just that, fanciful stories.

Yes, many of the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati talks have been transcribed and now published. And we know from these that Sw. B. S. did not give mantras based on age. We also have quotations directly from the Maharishi where he states that he did not know the process Sw. B.S. used to give out mantras, as Sw. B.S. always did them privately, where he could not directly witness the initiations.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the titles for the publications that include the transcripts?   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transcript in this instance are from the Sw. BS's successor, Shankaracharya Swarupananda Saraswati in Vrindaban, India, 1985. He states:

"Without having an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), no one could have a mantra from him [Swami Brahmananda Saraswati]. The very meaning of mantra is ishtadevata. Therefore, along with every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the ishtadevata is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one reflects over one's ishtadevata before chanting or meditating with one's mantra."

So clearly there is a discrepancy between how Maharishi's teachers dole out mantras and the actual guru (Sw. BS). The actual ishtadevata is concealed from TM students, they are told that they are just "meaningless sounds".

Some quotes by the Maharishi on this matter are as follows:

He was asked in an official lecture in 1959 how he chose the mantras for westerners and if it was the same as his Guru, who gave by the ishta-devata or their Personal God (Shiva, Lakshmi, etc.), he said:

Questioner - Maharishi, how may a person find, you know, which of the, of the, the five materials [elements?] are predominant in them?

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - They, they have their method of, uh, oh, from the tendencies they know, from the, from the cut of the face they know. From the tendency. From the tendency.

Q - Do you take that into consideration when you give the person a mantra?

M M Y - I don't go into all these vibrations, botherations. I ask him "Which god you like?" He says "Shiva" - Okay, Shiva! [Maharishi laughs, very loudly] Where is the time to go into complications and all that? Ask him "What he like?" and that is it. [more laughter, the laughter now sounding strained] And somebody comes, "Oh my, I don't have any liking for anybody", then I trace behind, And then, "When you were young?" and "Which temple you were going more?"

Q - How would you apply this to the westerners?

M M Y - Oh here we don't go into these minute details. [more strained laughter] We get the mantra direct and that does all good for him. [yet more laughter] In to.. not into so much details. Source: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/mp3s/Maharishi1959USA.mp3

The Maharishi has further admitted re: how his own Guru gave mantra-diksha:

Questioner - 'Was he still using the long mantras and all of that?'

M M Y - 'It's very difficult for me to find out what he was using, because initiation is all in private.....

And I was never interested who was given what mantra; I was interested in myself.....

Quote from recording made in Rishikesh, India, c.March 1969. Source: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/mp3s/MMYonGDexcerpt.mp3

I recommend listening to this as it's clear the Maharishi is very nervous about this, a lot of nervous laughter. He does not come across as knowledgeable on mantra at all.

The actual texts, biographies, etc. have been painstakingly been restored by the Maharishi's former primary biographer, Paul Mason, a superb scholar. They are:

LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953);

108 DISCOURSES OF GURU DEV LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953) Vol. I;

GURU DEV AS PRESENTED BY MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953) Vol. III

(all by Paul Mason)--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The use of the name of a favorite god as a mantra appears to contradict the view that the mantra is meaningless sound. Perhaps that changed sometime after 1959. On another page I asked about the role of maharishi in creating TM and the answer there was that he made it easier for non-Indians to practice. Perhaps the process of streamlining involved reducing the choice of mantras to a simple formula.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the actual form of TM, mental easy mantra repetition (Skt.: manasika-japa) is common and ubiquitous across India, it is actually quite similar to versions Indians would practice, but Indians typically get the full mantra chain of the devata at once. For example a Lakshmi devotee might get "Aum Shring Lakshmiyai Namaha" and a TMers would just get "Shring"--and only get the other pieces after expensive (supposedly) "advanced" techniques that cost many thousands of dollars and more time devoted to the group. The chart or correspondence format it is probably based on the ashramas, the stages humans naturally go through as they age, which makes sense since Sw. BS was a hardline follower of Shastric injunctions, and so could be "Mahesh" (as Sw. BS called his young assistant) when it suited him.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above evidence, which counters the false information of selection, the entry needs to be edited.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "Author George Chryssides says that, according to the Maharishi, the mantras for "householders" and for recluses differ." Clearly is in error in regards to TM. Many "recluses" use the same tantric mantras that TM meditators do! In fact the recluse/monk segments of the TM Org, Mother Divine and Purusha, both use TM "householder" mantras! I could list some other sources to show that this assertion is factually incorrect. Anyone else want to chime in?--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable that Chryssides has written this. If we have other sources that show the same mantras are given to householders and to recluses then we can add that too. However we don't deleted sourced material just because they make statements which conflict with our personal knowledge. There are other reasons to delete sources, such as being self-published, poor quality, or consistently erroneous. However none of those would apply to Chryssides. We can, and do, make clear that he is simply repeating what Maharishi has stated rather than giving his own opinion. Does that make sense?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Will's points here also apply to Russell and others who are already used as sources in the existing text. --BwB (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback wrote " We can, and do, make clear that he is simply repeating what Maharishi has stated rather than giving his own opinion. Does that make sense?" The problem I have with that is that for one, the Maharishi gave the same mantras to regular TMers and renunciate members of his org. If they "differ" why the discrepancy? Most mantras I've read could be used by either householders or renunciates. I guess I'm puzzled why someone wants to make this distinction, when it's clearly violated by the Maharishi and TM teachers.

In ref. to BWB's opinion, please keep in mind Russell's book is promotional literature used with the sale and promotion of TM. Such promotional literature (esp. when used to sell TM, the entry in question!) clearly is considered "questionable". Also, please remember that exceptional claims, like the claim that mantras are magically different for those sexually active and those not sexually active, these cites require exceptional evidence, not questionable evidence. The author being a TM Org sponsored and trained teacher of TM, selling a book on TM, means the book citation is biased and therefore does not express a Neutral POV. I believe this lack of NPOV is undeniable in TM teacher tracts, like Russell's. Please check out WP:NPOV with special reference to "bias". --Kala Bethere (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

I have removed the following text because it is unsourced and violated WP:NPOV.

"Based on this broad discrepancy in the way the Maharishi gave mantra diksha and his teacher, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, it is clear the Maharishi is not using the tradition of his guru, but he either devised or acquired the "mantra and age method" elsewhere." --BwB (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored text deleted by Kala. It is not correct to removed sourced material from this article without discussion and consensus. --BwB (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed text that contains POV or weasley wording. We also need citations for some of the text recently submitted in this section. Further, it would be good to have the name of the publishing company, and the page numbers for references 28-30. --BwB (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BigWeeBoy, please check the discussion page for sources, etc. Sources can be added, as needed. Unless you can give a good reason for the claims you deleted on the discussion page, I will have no choice but to revert/undo. Editors can not be responsible for you not checking the discussion page, nor can we force to respond there. The deleted quote above was deleted on the basis of direct quotes from the Maharishi on the discussion pages. If you have primary sources which counters the Maharishi's direct comments, then we should post them. Until then then, I'm afraid based on the direct quotes, it would need to be reinstated. Please discuss any direct quotes you might have in the relevant discussion section.

The quote by Jefferson, apparently from an outdated biographical work, is directly countered by statements from the Maharishi and a direct student of Swami BS on the discussion page, again, please answer there if you actually have a primary source quote which may be helpful. Thanks!--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be placed in the article and must directly reference the topic of the article. The onus is on the editor who adds content to make sure the content is sourced. Primary sources are in general not considered Wikipedia compliant sources. (olive (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It looks like all of this is self-published and therefore not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Audiotapes online aren't acceptable sources either. As far as I can tell, only Mason's 1994 biography was published by a publisher. I checked the name of the publishing company of the 2005 edition and found that there was no such company registered in the UK, nor any such trade name registered. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and video are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, if we have a video of MMY speaking then that would be a reliable primary source for his views.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The audio in this case, is from an official lecture of MMY. They have been transcribed and they are on the web and have been published in book format. The transcribed talks of Sw. BS are English translations of his Hindi talks, now in the public domain. Paul Mason's biography of MMY is not self-published, per the author.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala. Do not remove Russel which is sourced, and only add text that is reliable and verifiable. I have no problem with you adding content that is sourced properly. If the content you wish to add is contentious you can expect to need agreement from editors to add it, though.(olive (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive and BigWBoy, unfortunately it was pointed out several days ago, that the TM mantras were not from the Vedic tradition. I provided a verifiable secondary source demonstrating this and requested that anyone who had evidence of the TM mantras in the Vedas to please provide them. In absence of any other sources since my request, it's clear the old quote by "Russel" is in error, outdated or both. It is therefore an unreliable source. If you cannot quote a source in the Vedas, then I'm afraid this is not only an unreliable source it is an unverifiable as well. Please keep in mind that many of these old TM books and biographies are of very low quality and often advertisements not containing reliable facts and therefore do not meet Wilipedia standards for inclusion. This is especially the case with Russell being a TM teacher as he does not express a neutral POV. Therefore, you need to back this quote up, as the source is clearly in error. Of course I will anxiously await your source from the Vedas and do thank you in advance. Russell unfortunately is not a reliable source, as his statements contradict the textual reality of the Sanskrit source literature. Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala your understanding of Wiki policy of reliable and verifiable is incorrect. --BwB (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala. Your continued efforts to remove sourced content is based on an incorrect reading of the policy and guideline as BWB points out above. We are citing content based on Wikipedia compliant a source and to create neutrality we can add other reliable, verifiable sourced content, but removing content based on your opinion and on your own research then coming to conclusions based on that research creates WP:OR, and is disruptive to the editing process (olive (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

BWB wrote "Kala your understanding of Wiki policy of reliable and verifiable is incorrect." Please review WP:V BWB and Olive. It clearly states that Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts. Russell, stating something historically incorrect, would fall under this warning. Just because a guru claims something is true, does not make it true. This is further highlighted by the fact that Russell's book is promotional literature used with the sale and promotion of TM. Such promotional literature (esp. when used in conjunction sale of the entry in question!) clearly is considered "questionable". In fact when I learned TM, his book was sold at our TM center as part of their promotional literature. Dime novel "biographies" by TM teachers or TM Org employees would fall under this same warning.

Also, please remember that exceptional claims, like the claim that Vedic religion somehow had identical mantras to tantric ones but for which no one can share a source for, these cites require exceptional evidence, not questionable evidence from TM promotional literature. I hope this clarifies the dilemma the entry presents.

A further concern would be that this represents "Original Research" and that the author, being a TM Org sponsored and trained teacher of TM, selling a book on TM, means the book citation is biased and therefore does not express a Neutral POV. I believe this lack of NPOV is undeniable in TM teacher tracts, like Russell's. Sadly I believe there are numerous such instances in the TM and it's kindred entries, like the Oates quotes. Please check out WP:NPOV with special reference to "bias". Hopefully together we can work to remove these sources of bias, questionable and fringe claims like Russell and Oates (and others).--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text parking spot

According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition.^[1] Early lectures of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi show that he departed significantly in the mantra selection procedure used by his teacher, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. ^[2] Instead of selecting the devata of an individual, the Maharishi developed a system based on age.

I don't see references to the mantras in TM in the source While The Gods Play..., and can't access the other two sources. Perhaps Kala could give us some page numbers or add the quotes here which contain the information . We could then re add this sentence. Since none of the rest is sourced at all , I suggest we leave it here until we can source it all. This is a fair amount of content to leave in place without sourcing. We can replace it in the article once its sourced if there is editor agreement on it. (olive (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Olive. I felt to leave it in the article so Kala had some time to find sources or learn more about the Wiki policies, but glad you have taken it out for now. As you say, it can be moved back to the article if and when references are provided. --BwB (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what was most recently removed was the first sentence, which was the last thing I restored. This is appropriately sourced to a pundit of the Shankaracharya and Rig Veda tradition who says there are different kinds of mantra and Vedic and Tantric are different types. Vedic mantras are chants from the Rig or Sama Veda. Danielou clearly states very little is left of the Vedic religion, really just some sacrificial chants to the Vedic Gods, most of Hinduism is derived from the tantras (Danielou's guru trained under Swami Brahmananda Saraswati) and the other source is the mantra-koshas themselves detailing the dynamics and sequential meaning of all the TM mantras, directly as they were perceived by the tantras and the tantric rishis. With these three verifiable sources, I replaced the Unreliable, Biased Source (from biased TM advocate "Russell") containing Unverifiable Information, potential Hoax Creating, replaced with good quote and source. No one has yet present a Vedic source of the TM mantras.

I'll address the other quotes and the correction of the rest of the paragraph, as time allows. Right now I'm concerned with the first sentence, that mislerads Wiki readers.

It's time to put away this Vedic hoax. If you have a credible source, please share it. Otherwise Russell, an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards, needs to be expunged. Please realize the single sentence which was removed repeatedly could be seen as edit warring, esp. since you keep replacing it with the same inauthentic source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your references for this sentence do not meet Wiki policy of [WP:RELIABLE| reliable]] and verifiable. --BwB (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source lists the TM mantras as listed in the tantras and their actual meanings. It sounds like you are misreading something. Since you do not quote what specifically you are referring to, it's hard to know what you actually mean BWB. OTOH, the case for removal of the Russell quote is clear: it's a promotional book by a former salesman of TM, he does not therefore present a NPOV. It does not appear the book is footnoted and there is no verifiable source for the alleged claim. Please be aware that Wikipedia considers works which are promotional in nature, such as Russell, to be questionable sources. Since you cannot back up your claim with any other source, it needs to be removed or changed. As Wikipedia tells us: "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition"

• ^[3]
• ^[4]
• ^[5]

• The first and second sources aren't accessible so that we can check them. Could you et us know how to access them or quote the passages that refer to TM and mantra
• The third source does not seem to have any content about TM and mantras

Unless these sources specifically make a direct reference to TM and mantras, rather than to provide information on mantras they can't be used, and would violate WP:NOR if they were. Per WP:NOR sources must directly reference the subject topic of the article, in this case the TM technique.

The Russel book is published by Routledge and would be considered a reliable, verifiable source per Wikipedia. As an aside the subtitle is A Skeptic's Guide To The TM Program.

A quick look at the sound value section shows a number of conflicts with mantra-shastra and with the talks of the Maharishi. Let's go through this one paragraph at a time and try to improve the errors in a factual and readable way. I'm afraid what's happening here is we're getting a lot of "Maharishi said" type statements and it's clear not everything he is stating is actually factually correct.

This would be a good place to introduce the meanings behind the mantra, perhaps even give an example to demonstrate.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala, Just curious. You've made many authoritative-sounding statements; here you've referred to mantra shastra and talks of Maharishi as though you were familiar with them. This familiarity is unusual, as most people have not been exposed to this particular knowledge. I have been very open here about my background (a summary is on my User page). It would be interesting, and possibly helpful, if you shared some of your relevant background. Myself, I'd love to have an off-WP discussion with you about bija mantras, since I use them with hundreds of clients. I know you don't feel welcome here because of all the criticisms (you're not yet an expert WP editor), but I for one appreciate the range of points of view represented by all the active editors here. David spector (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in a couple of sections there is an attempt to characterize TM as "effortless". This is untrue and the article should be edited to reflect this. It is incorrect on several grounds. Those grounds are: The Maharishi, at the Estes Park Teacher Training Course (TTC) specifically addressed this misconception and has stated that TM does require a small amount of effort. This is an important distinction to make since Advaita Vedanta meditators will be able to explain that only nondual meditation can actually be considered "effortless" as it has no "object" (of meditation per se). Any meditation technique that uses "support" (Skt. alambana) cannot, ipso facto, be considered effortless, because it requires working in some way, with a separate object (in this case a mental mantra). Therefore the article should be examined closely for such flase statements since they go not only against the natural rationale of meditation practice, but they also go against the direct explanation of the founder of the TM brand, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:NOR. Please note that in particular that the standard is verifiability, not truth. TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TimidGuy, I was already aware, but please keep in mind these need to be reliable sources. When you see someone claiming a dualistic form of meditation is effortless, a person knowledgeable of meditation practices would recognize such persons as unreliable, based on their ignorance of the subject at hand (meditation). Unfortunately TM teachers are not instructed very well in meditation theory and practice.

So therefore in this context, we could say "people claiming effortlessness" in the context of TM could be looked at as unreliable sources. Since we know the Maharishi also expressed the view that TM is not effortless, those claiming "effortlessness" could be seen as expressing a view unrepresentative of TM as taught by MMY, and therefore unreliable in the context of TM. Such claims could also be seen to represent opinion or possibly original research/thought.

I would recommend replacing the misleading "effortless" with "easy", a term well used by the Maharishi in referring to TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Kala is incorrect in her claim that TM cannot be called "effortless". Here are some responses to her specific points:

• Maharishi has stated that TM requires some effort: he has explained at many times and in many places that TM involves what he called "effortless effort". The context is always a detailed explanation of transcending. While a such a detailed explanation would require an unreasonable amount of space here, a simplified explanation is that the mind "favors" the mantra whenever the process of stress release^[6] allows this to be done effortlessly. Maharishi always made it clear to TM teachers in training as well as to the general public that both the inward and outward strokes of meditation should be completely effortless. Many practitioners introduce effort on their own, which causes some reduction in the effectiveness of their practice; Maharishi always recommended meditation checking with a teacher to eliminate such effort.

• Advaita Meditation is effortless because nondual meditation has no object of meditation: unlike TM, the term "advaita meditation" does not refer to a well-defined or standardized mental technique. Further, the term "nondual meditation" is not only rare, but probably makes no sense to many Advaita proponents, who claim that no practice (not even meditation) is needed to realize the truth that we are already living.^[7] While it is certainly true that the words advaita and vedanta refer to the unity of the pure consciousness within us and the same pure consciousness that permeates the entire universe (what Maharishi called the Unity and Brahman states of consciousness), there is no actual or theoretical conflict with the use of an object in meditation, as long as the mind transcends the experience of that object in order to arrive at a state of inner alert silence, free of thinking, filled with bliss (samadhi). I attend an advaita meditation center^[8]; the practice they teach is in fact a mantra-based meditation that originated with Maharishi and his teacher (Guru Dev), and subsequent leaders of the Shankaracharya tradition in India.

• No mantra meditation technique can be considered effortless, because it requires working with a mental object: Many traditions of meditation in India (besides MMY's) agree that there are many ways to meditate (an ancient analysis^[9] lists 112 methods); they agree that meditation with an inner object of perception is acceptable. This is based on ancient scripture that advises using such an object as a "vehicle" rather than as a point of fixed focus. Maharishi has explained that the mantra is used effortlessly, only to show us the direction toward the source of thought, not as a focus for mental repetition and concentration. He always said that the process of transcending is automatic once we take "the right direction", powered by the enjoyment and inner energy provided by more abstract and quieter levels of mental activity. Concentration on any mental object causes effort because it opposes this natural movement of the mind; even in introductory lectures TM teachers state that TM is neither concentration (focus and effort), nor is it contemplation (thinking about spiritual topics, or daydreaming).

The word "effortless" is more accurate than "easy", because it includes the complete effortlessness of living in accord with all the laws of nature, free of stress, and with full access to mind and body for effective and skillful action in enlightenment.

On a personal note, I have practiced TM for 40 years and can testify to having had many moments during practice in which, impatient for results, I used the mantra incorrectly, which produced effort and discomfort, as well as many moments best characterized as completely effortless, whether the mantra was present in my awareness or at those times or not. I believe, based on my experiences working with many meditation clients, that only a completely effortless meditation practice can produce the sense of freedom and fulfilment that are characteristic of life in enlightenment. David spector (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion or knowledge of whether this practice is or is not effortless. However as a general rule we should avoid making the determination that it is effortless and should instead stick to saying that it has been called or described as effortless, when practiced properly, or whatever the sources say. If there are other views those should be included too.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Other views" must be specifically on TM, not some other type of meditation. These views of TM must be supported by refs that meet Wiki policies. I am not sure why we cannot say, for example, that the practice is effortless. --BwB (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point BwB on the need that it be specific to TM and be properly sourced. I would think it would be okay to say "described as effortless." TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem OK to parse it as "described as effortless" but since alambana (Skt) or "meditation with props" (mantra in this case) all require subtle meditative effort, indeed the Sanskrit term for technique means "with effort" (Skt. prayatna) we're going against the ipso facto realities of styles of meditation. I would feel odd placing a known false statement in an article simply because TMers are accustomed to hearing it. David Spector's suggestion that TM was like one of the meditations in the tantric vijnana-bhairava is interesting, but he should understand the threefold division of the Trika scriptures and then he would understand that TM falls in the "effortful" category. In other words a little homework is a lot better than lengthy opinions. I'd be glad to explain the threefold structure of the vijnana-bhairava if it would help your understanding David. It's important to understand and comprehend that even though MMY spoke of Vedanta and other systems, the system of TM comes from a mantra tradition and the yoga tradition, not the vedantic tradition, This is a common error in uncritically thought out TM writings.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have reliable sources to support you arguments. --BwB (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick with MMY's quote then. I have a source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To a large degree, this discussion of the use of the word "effortless" is one of semantics. I can vouch for the observations of David spector above. Maharishi used the word effortless repeatedly to describe the TM technique. On one or two occasions that I witnessed, when pressed by a questioner, he admitted that some faintest attention is employed, but continued to insist that no effort is involved. In the West, effort means "trying." It is not a faint thing such as Maharishi was describing as faintest attention or "effortless effort." So he used the word repeatedly to signify that no trying to do anything is involved in TM. It is a simple, easy thing that requires only faint attention, no effort. This is not a question of academic definitions. It is a practical question of how to practice the technique. If Kala Bethere has some reference about the TM technique specifically, then we can examine that in the context of this section and determine if the information is appropriate to add to the article. Otherwise, this discussion is diverging from what seems to be the main intent of the article--to convey information about the TM technique as seen by it's originator and as instructed to and practiced by those who do the technique. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the article is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. The views of the originator and practitioners are certainly significant, but they aren't the only ones we need to include.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, significant POV about Transcendental Meditation, meeting the Wiki standards of WP:V and WP:NOR. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback wrote: "The intent of the article is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. The views of the originator and practitioners are certainly significant, but they aren't the only ones we need to include. "

What if the point of view is tainted by bias or written by someone who was trained to have a special or unique POV? For example would it be NPOV for a entry on Cigarette Safety for a Cigarette Corporation CEO to write about the safety of smoking and/or the dangers of smoking if he argued against what mainstream science was saying, but insisted that their POV should prevail? What if he got Professor of Cigarette U. to come and help out with that same POV? Is that kind of thing OK for editors?

I'm afraid we're forced, in lieu of NPOV, to weigh or somehow access the Neutrality of all published authors used, esp. in a setting where belief and adherence to a specific philosophy are key themes. For example if people were trained to think a certain thing, and that thing only was the correct way, the "purity" of the teaching that could be expressed, and such puritans were writing a source publication, wouldn't it be important, for assessing NPOV, to understand that such potential biases were being used in it's writing? If these same people have some potential Promotional Benefit, i.e. an item, technique or philosophy which is sold, even if contained in book format; these sound like Questionable Source(s) and so therefore isn't this also is a criteria for Non-Reliability?

These issues have to raised. We are forced, in terms of Reliability and Neutrality to address the implications of a TM Org―and it's instructed adherents under these same terms, in terms of published sources, no?--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a source that impeaches another source in relation to this topic, then that may be worth including. So, to use your analogy, if one of the sources is written by an employee of the tobacco company, then that's relevant. Saying that he is an adulterer would not be relevant.

We must include all significant points of view, but only in proportion to their prominence. If the tobacco company's scientists had performed 90 studies to show the safety of their cigarettes, that's still just one point of view, and it doesn't necessarily deserve 90 times as much space as a single, well-publicized study that shows the opposite.

According to WP:FRINGE, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. An assertion that meditation lowers stress is not exceptional. An assertion that meditation affects the weather probably is exception. It's hard to say if the method of selecting a mantra could be considered exceptional. That'd probably depend on the extent of the gap between the assertion and conventional wisdom. If there's no ordinary view then there's no extraordinary view.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were coming to the TM article as a total neophyte, I would like to know first of all how the developer of the technique and its practitioners view it. Second, I would like to know about the scientific research examining its effects. Third, I would be mildly curious about "outside" views, but would take them "with a grain of salt." Every author and every editor has a point of view no matter how much he or she tries to be neutral. These views are based first and foremost on the person's own experiences. There is no way to avoid the influence of point of view on the article, because this pov helps to determine the statements and sources the editors select for the article. The idea of WP is that many editors participating cooperatively and politely in an article's creation will eventually even out the points of view represented, resulting in an article that is relatively accurate and useful. The best articles use sources that are transparent with regard to their pov. We may expect an author or editor who admits to a lifetime of practice of the technique to hold a positive pov regarding the technique. We also may expect an author or editor who has never practiced the technique or one who has tried it and has formed negative opinions regarding it to find sources to uphold views based on their experiences. Nevertheless, if we stick closely with the WP guidelines, the theory is that the article will come more and more accurately to reflect a balanced spectrum of views. The key is for editors to follow the guidelines and to not be too attached to our own pov no matter how "right" we think we are. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were such a person, and you found out that people were financially benefitting from their editing of an entry, to make it look better than it is, you'd also want to do something. So therefore although mantras purchased via such a person, which should be simply doled out via age, are made to appear as if they are: based on the individual nervous system, based on whether one is a householder or renunciate, based on the "euphonics" of mantras, the secrets of which were standardized for today's teachers of the technique by the Maharishi after his years of study with his own teacher, Guru Dev. The only thing is, most of this is incorrect! But since we have sources, written by TM mantra salespersons, in promotional literature, we can use these Questionable Sources to pad the article?

I'm not buying it.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Beback wrote: "::::::If we had a source that impeaches another source in relation to this topic (snip)..." You failed to respond to the key questions:

Doesn't a quote which is not Reliable and is not Neutral demand removal or an edit? And don't responses from old (or new) promotional literature constitute "Questionable Sources" and therefore are to be considered "Unreliable"? Wouldn't being a salesman of said product (in this case salesperson of TM) constitute a bias and therefore render the writer/editor Not Neutral, at least potentially? (WP:NPOV)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. (WP:VERIFY WP:SOURCES)

Such [Unreliable] sources include (...) publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature. (WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES)

--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are discussing the Russel book, it is not promotional in nature, it is in fact a skeptic's view.

NPOV does not refer to the source it refers to the article, and neutrality is achieved in an article by using sources that represent significant viewpoints. The source in this case is published by a reputable publisher, and so makes the source's content Per Wikipedia useable , reliable and verifiable.(olive (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Olive, unfortunately there's a reason this book has been reviewed (amazon.com) as "Nothing more than an advertisement for $2,000+ Meditation Class." It's because it's trying to talk you into spending a lot of money to get a simple mantra meditation. The fact that it is often used in conjunction with TM teaching and proselytizing (and thus the sales of TM) would indicate that it is, in fact, promotional in nature. Perhaps a dictionary definition would be of help for you: Promotional: of or relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness. I think it's undeniable that this book is promoting TM and that it has been used that way for some time. Also, of course, Russell is trained as a TM mantra salesman (bias, non neutral POV).

Please keep in mind, Russell is not the only source in the TM (and TM-related Wikipedia entries) that suffer from this failing. As time goes on, we'll have the opportunity to look at other sources similarly, and thereby improve the quality of these entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the title, there is nothing skeptical about the book. Maybe the title should be read to mean that it is a guide to convince skeptics. To KB, Amazon reviews aren't reliable sources. The book was published by a mainstream publisher, so it's at very least a reliable source for the author's views. If there was evidence that the book was paid for by the movement then that would help show that it was intended for promotional purposes.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical or not skeptical, the Russel book meets WP guidelines for reliable source. If anyone has an equally reliable source that shows Russel was paid by any TM organization to write this book, then by all means put that into the article. Personally, I doubt that claim. I know many TM practitioners that have written about either the TM technique or its effects, and I know of no one who was paid by any organization to do it. Generally, they do what they do out of their conviction that their efforts will be of use to someone whose life may be bettered by having the information they write. Following up on my comment from yesterday, I am pleased that the point of view of Kala Bethere is so transparent. That makes for ease of communication. I am sure that once the peculiar WP style of operation is clear, we will have some informative additions to this article. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon quote is just an example and to show that people are reacting similarly to my claim.

So you're saying the source has to be financially tied to the organization in order to be promotional? Is there a reference in the Wikipedia help pages that this is stated? It's certainly used to promote TM on web entries, just a do a simple Google search: very widespread promotional use.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this particularly odd rationalization from the nice folks in beautiful downtown Fairfield has anything to do with how little MUM pays its faculty. Just a theory, but a darned good one. Fladrif (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChemistryProf please try to keep an open mind and realize that the fact that Russell was (or perhaps still is) a TM teacher who would have benefitted financially from the sales of TM mantras in selling the instruction of TM to neophytes. Thus a book touting a product he sells isn't generally looked upon being non self-promotional and unbiased! If it is by the Wikipedia, I guess we just hold different ethical standards then.

Also, just because the topic of TM is near and dear to you doesn't mean that because a TM book or a website claims to be skeptical, that it actually is what it claims.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know a number of chemists and physicists who have written authoritative books in their fields. Some of these have been printed and sold by the tens of thousands. The authors have enjoyed considerable royalties from these sales. Do you mean to say we must exclude these books from consideration when writing for WP about topics covered in the books? I don't believe such an exclusion would be academically acceptable. I'm sure it is not acceptable according to the WP guidelines. If it were, we would have to radically change thousands of WP articles, not to mention the accepted practice in academia of citing authoritative references by people within their areas of specialization. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Prof. Journalist want to sell papers, researchers want to be published, authors want to sell books - everyone is motivated to write about their chosen subject based on their desires. Therefore all writing by nature is subjective and POV. And as Prof says, we could pick every single person used as a source in Wiki and pick through their motivatins to see why they wrote what they did - was it objective, where they paid for their efforts, etc. etc. This would be a very tedious undertaking. This is why Wiki has a few rules on sources and we as editors do our best to abide by them. While Kala may have personal view on Russell, etc., as far as Wiki is concerned they are valid refs. --BwB (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Different situation. In their case the books were mostly likely not promoting the sale of the item they were selling, which was the book's primary theme (buy my product). For example we might have a quote in a Scientology book that states Scientology is from the Xenu tradtition. But the book is not only an not an authoritative work on the traditions of Xenu, it's just reporting what L. Ron said in a lecture, with no back checking. The author is a Scientology true believer who wrote the book to help sell more "clearings", and he truly believes the Xenu quote is real (without any, zero, corroborating evidence) and that this statement represents the purity of the Scientology teaching. We might include the "Scientology comes form the traditions of Xenu" quote, but also other views about how objective observers have other actual printed, textual sources as to where they actually came from. Both views could be included, but what would happen would be the Xenu quote ends up looking rather silly in light of actual textual evidence to the contrary. Once we add the actual translations of the TM mantras from their sources, it would similarly make the "we're Vedic 'coz we were told it was" statement appear odd and like an unresearched idea, from a questionable source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from this discussion if we have any more information about Russell or the book then we did when we started. By his own admission, he was apparently trained as a TM instructor. That takes him out of the rank-and-file practitioners and into the first level of the management of the movement. As of 1976, the year he wrote it, 8,000 TM instructors had been trained in the U.S. and half of those were still active. (One million people had been trained in the technique). So he was a part of the relatively small corps of instructors, and presumably paid if he was actively giving instruction. However I'd assume that the pay was not significant at that time. We have no information about other payments he may have received, or other positions he may have held. So far I don't see anything that'd be sufficient to discount him as a source, but perhaps we should clarify his relationship to the movement so that readers can better judge his POV. So far as Wikipedia terminology goes, he is not an independent 3rd-party when writing about TM.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Russel states in the book that he was trained as an instructor of the TM technique, then it would be good to include that information in the article. As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, every researcher, author, and editor has a point of view, even though they may try to be neutral in their writings. As long as the reader has enough information to ascertain their point of view, that is what matters. That is what I meant by transparency. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will I think we now have established and documented that Russell's book sold a commercial product (TM) and that as a teacher, he benefitted from the sale of both the book and sale of TM mantra instruction. This is significant IMO. I will have all the laboriously gathered references for another, documented and historically reliable claim on the origin of the TM mantras in the tantras, with direct quotes from the tantric mantra dictionaries, hopefully by the end of the weekend. I was able to find one of my old, rare translations of these beautiful and remarkable works on the TM mantras. So it would be great to include whatever material you are recommending. How would these make it appear in the entry? I think it would be nice to show the financial and movement connections. I will work on the tantric origin, with footnotes, and try to make it work harmoniously with Russell's quotes on the Vedic origin.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another significant detail from Russel's biography is that he studied with Maharishi himself. So we might introduce with something along these lines: "Russel, a certified TM instructor who had studied with Maharishi, wrote that..."   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Bethere, I do not agree with you that "...we now have established and documented that Russell's book sold a commercial product (TM) and that as a teacher, he benefitted from the sale of both the book and sale of TM mantra instruction." None of these claims has been "established." If he says in his book that he was trained as a TM instructor, then that is important to know. It means that readers might want to take that statement into account in forming opinions about the content of the book. It means Russel has been exposed to many more details of the instruction than the average practitioner or than any non-practitioner. It also says there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. It does not disqualify the book as a reliable source in the WP definition. On the other hand, if you have another source that says "the TM mantras have a different origin than attributed to them by Russel," then it could be appropriate to include a quote or paraphrase of that statement and a reference to the source in the context of the statement attributed to Russel. But unless your source refers specifically to the "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation," then it is not an acceptable source by WP definition. Do you understand that quirk in the WP way of doing things? We editors are not able to select any source that may appear to uphold our particular point of view unless that source specifically states that point of view in reference to the specific topic of the article, in this case Transcendental Meditation. Many new editors find this difficult to understand because it is so different from the manner of discourse they may be accustomed to in academia. But this is the WP way, and it is possibly the only way to create a useful encyclopedia that is "written" (that is, edited) by people who are not experts on the topic about which they write. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChemistryProf, If you have a source which is in the Vedas, please share it! However most people who are familiar with Sanskrit and tantric writings will be able to tell you, the TM mantras occur regularly in this literature, they're quite common and widespread. Fortunately the same mantras as in TM have been collated in Sanskrit texts and have been translated, so this is excellent for sourcing.

Will that suggestion sounds good. I do wonder since the article does not mention that TM is a commercial meditation technique if the addition of the word "commercial" (or some similar adjective) should be used in the first paragraph of the entry? Ex.: The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a commercial form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). One of the interesting things is, it appears from comments people purchase Russell's book thinking it will instruct them in the technique, only to find that it was to get them to try to buy their product (TM).

There also have been some price changes, perhaps it would be helpful to also include the current American price for TM?--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding fees and commercialism, I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic. In my experience, it's helpful to have a separate page for pasting short excerpts from reference materials as a preparation for drafting new material. In this case, we might use Talk:Transcendental Meditation/fees. Let's add what we find there, and once enough research has been compiled to give a reasonably full picture we can summarize it.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: Unless you have a source for this information that says explicitly, the TM mantras come from the tantric literature you cannot make this kind of claim in an encyclopedic article. Unless you have a source that specifically says TM is a commercial form of mantra mediation you cannot use this information in a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article. To include either with out sources that explicitly make these connections is WP:OR, and such additions would have to be removed. Russell is considered, as all editors have stated above, a reliable and therefore compliant source.

The issue of price had been discussed in the past and I believe content on price was removed because it had a commercial, advertising- like tone.(olive (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Will Beback wrote "I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic."

What a wonderful idea. I do believe that TM prices have come down from the 2500 dollar, US price, but could one of the TM practitioners here verify that? How much are the so-called advanced technique/mantra add-ons? And of course the TM-Sidhi program price. Perhaps we could even include the mantra lists, which have appeared in a number of good sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was consensus to remove content that referred to price of learning the technique. I remember an attack of sorts because the content was there, and the so called TM editors were "obviously" advertising. I assume then, there was a more recent discussion. The number of times editors have been asked to remove content then some one else comes along and demands the content be added are ... numerous. Mantra information is included in the article and information on prices world wide would have to be referenced. (olive (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As we've discussed several times before, the fees are a subject of controversy and that controversy needs to be included in the article for it to achieve NPOV. There are plenty of secondary sources that discuss this matter. Until we compile them and work from references we're just arguing amongst ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing. I'm saying add the content if there are refs. I've been in the situation where agreement was to delete such information, and now someone wants to add it. Fine. Arguing . Nope.(olive (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think we all agree then.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're all agreeing, but would someone please clarify in unambiguous terms what we are agreeing? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic." It doesn't even matter what the topic is - this is always a good strategy.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is fine with me, just so long as we are all on the same page with what constitutes a reliable source under WP guidelines. From his/her comments, Kala Bethere seems not to be familiar with the tight restrictions we are under. If the source does not mention the topic of the article (Transcendental Meditation) in reference to the point being made, then it cannot be a reliable source. Beyond that, there seem to be ongoing arguments about what is reliable, but this is the minimum requirement, and it is often not easy to meet. May I request that whatever sources are posted, please make the relevant section of the reference available to other editors who may not have access to it? ChemistryProf (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compile the sources. Then we can decide which ones are the best and which aren't acceptable. I agree that it's a help when extended source material are made available for other editors. Sometimes it's easier to email than to transcribe.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, that I don't think the cost of starting TM is particularly controversial or noteworthy any more than one quibbles about a car's price, but the sources may give some insights on the matter, and I'll go with othe-editor agreement on this(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with olive that the cost of TM instruction is not out of line with most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars and other such things that involve a similar amount of time and instructor attention. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the list of sources that were compiled a few months ago?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. We can use that instead of the /fees page I proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChemistryProf wrote: "I agree with olive that the cost of TM instruction is not out of line with most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars"

I don't think you are correct on this ChemProf. The Shambhala course is around a hundred dollars for a 20 hour course, meals and detailed personal instruction included. They also teach meditation for free at their centers. I believe Amma's technique is free/donation. The 10-day Vipassana course is free/donation and that includes food and lodging. Sri Sri Ravi Shankara teaches TM, complete with the same religious ceremony used in TM for around 300 US dollars. Chopra teaches a TM-style technique, also in the 300-500 dollar range. MBSR is around $250 for an 8 week course. Could you give some examples of others that charge such high prices? These all seem low comparatively.

TM, if 1500 US dollars is the current price (it could still be 2500, not sure), would much more expensive than these popular meditation formats.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are correct, Kala Bethere, about the prices of other meditation techniques. If you will notice, I said in comparison to "most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars." I was thinking about the courses given to executives and the like in these weekend situations. Of course there are less expensive courses given in a variety of settings, but the point I was making is that the TM program expense is not "out of this world." ChemistryProf (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ChemProf, let's compare it then to the Insight Meditation Societies "scientists course" which has trained leading scientists in a specialized week long meditation retreat, teaching more than one technique (2 techniques instead of 1). What we would have to compare is a "Residence Course" a week long, with the price of TM. If 2500 US is correct, plus 500 for food and lodging, that would be 3000 US compared to 375 US for the scientists course. Really to be fair, since this course is teaching 2 techniques, you'd probably want to compare TM plus the first "advanced" technique or approx. 6000 US. Either way the difference is an 800-1600% higher price for TM mantra instruction and the religious ceremony (not including fruit, fresh-cut flowers and a fresh clean hanky).

I guess it would depend how you defined "out of this world".--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our own opinions about the cost and value of MVED-sponsored training are beside the point. The only views that matter are those expressed in reliable sources. I suggest we put this discussion on hold until we've collected a reasonably complete collection of sources on the topic, and then draft a section summarizing the significant views we've found.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for a preliminary chart of different meditation and their prices, from their individual websites. [1] --Kala Bethere (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that is the most productive way to deal with the fee issue. But whatever you make sure there are clear sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a convenient way to list the comparisons and not intended for inclusion as is. All the prices come from the meditation techniques web pages, today. The interesting thing is both Chopra and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar were previously associated with the Maharishi and thus teach the same technique, only much cheaper. There are groups of independent TM teachers now, who've largely risen up as a response to the prices being too high, who teach TM at inexpensive rates. There was a talk the Maharishi gave a few years back where he basically stated 'as long as they teach it right' it was OK for people to teach independently (or at least that's how some independent TM teachers took it). Some thought he meant his former disciple Sri Sri Ravi Shankara, others took it as a nod to the independent TM teachers.

Not too long ago, TM was 2500 USD, it's already dropped significantly to 1500 USD.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this to the /Sources page, but this is an example of the coverage on fees:

• Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week "Millionaire's Enlightenment Course" - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice.
  • Front: And now children, it's time for your yogic flying lesson. Jacqueline Stevens, Patrick Barkham. The Guardian. London (UK): Jan 27, 2009. pg. 1

With more sources like this I think we can develop a well-sourced and neutral discussion of the topic.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The study by Sarina Grosswold was a pilot study, with a handful of students and no control group. It may not be strong enough to include. I suggest we wait until her current and more rigorous research is published. Also, per MEDRS we shouldn't use popular media as a source for scientifi research. We should find a citation for Rita Benn's research and use that instead or in addition to the New York Times. She seems to have done two studies, one involving 60 students that may have been controlled. But the only one I can find so far is one that is likely too weak to include — 10 students using structured interviews and qualitative analysis. TimidGuy (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's important in meditation research whether or not they have controlled properly for placebo as well. Just because they use controls, doesn't mean they are using sufficient controls. There is such a thing as using "token controls". So they need to have used a control that actually made sure they weren't measuring a placebo response, e.g. someone else sitting eyes closed with a course that give similar expectations, instruction and believability and twice daily (like TM). It's been known how to do this by TM researchers for decades I'm told, but even the most recent cardiac review primarily uses "health education", a control that does not control for placebo!

If controls are used, the type and kind of control should be listed. If put in column form, you could have a "yes or no" column for "Control for Placebo?" --Kala Bethere (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kala Bethere that at least in certain types of studies, such as ones that may relate to clinical treatments, the control condition needs to be similar in structure, subject expectations, time and attention from an instructor, and amount of time spent in what might be called a placebo activity that takes the place of the individual TM sessions. I am familiar with many of the TM studies using "health education" as the control, and these criteria were met in most cases. One would have to read the methods section of these papers to find that out, however, because it is usually not mentioned in the abstracts. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a good guideline from MEDRS that we don't use descriptions of research by popular media as they are very general and can be misleading. However if the news source reports that a study has been done or has been published, we can mention that, yes?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the study comply with other aspects of WP:MEDRS?   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be important to have a PDF or some similar facsimile of the paper, so I we can review methodology, controls, disclosure of conflicts and any financial relationship with the product etc., etc.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback wrote "Does the study comply with other aspects of WP:MEDRS? Will many TM research papers don't disclose funding conflicts, so I think we need to be careful to check all research for this criteria. Financial COI is well spelled out. I also have to wonder how COI applies to Maharishi University employees who are editors? Is that allowed?

Also "Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used." Does this mean in a TM article we should avoid TM funded, TM Org personnel-based research papers?--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Bethere, I sense that you are bound by a strong negative opinion of the TM program and are searching for anything you can find to undermine the WP article on Transcendental Meditation. Over the years, I have critically read hundreds of the TM research papers. I have met many of the scientists from Maharishi University of Management and have visited there. Much of the research on this technique is as sound as any in the medical literature, especially any other behavioral medicine research. Doing good studies in behavioral medicine is inherently more complicated than doing research on drugs. Also, we must be clear that much of the research on TM is mainstream research. A lot of it is funded by the US National Institutes of Health and some by well known private foundations. Quite a bit of it is published in top-tier journals. There is no reason to doubt the honesty of the authors who report no conflict of interest. The University is a fully accredited institution of higher learning, just like all the other colleges and universities that publish research with potential medical implications. If you have an "axe to grind" with the technique or the research, then perhaps WP is not the best place to deal with that. What is called for here is, in as much as it's possible, a neutral attitude on the part of editors. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChemistryProf. Please keep in mind, it really isn't about what our personal opinions are, but what is balanced and neutral. I've read reviews of TM going back to the 80's that have shown how poor the research is, and even as recently as 2006, we have a major review that still doesn't look favorably on TM. Really what we have is a 30 year history of mostly poor or marginal research (that's certainly how the University of Alberta saw TM research). What I hope to see is if someone starts out with poor research (or fraudulent research), they learn from their mistakes and improve. I haven't seen that in TM research and the scientific record bears this out. I would consider TM research more a record of PR: massive PR campaigns for even the most marginal (or non-existent) findings.

Also please understand that the number of studies, peer-review or occasional publication in a decent journal is not some sort of gold stamp for research. It is not a guarantee of study quality by any means. Remember Pons and Fleischmann?

Since the WP states that "Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used" and we do have independent research on TM, it seems common sense that we would comply to WP standards. Esp. given the fringe and marginal nature of TM research in general. Also keep in mind the MEDRS guidelines state "Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field..." We already have such reviews for TM, and they've been performed independently.

If you've ever attended a scientific conference, you're already familiar with the habit of speakers disclosing financial ties, funding or bias, before even beginning to speak. Then it should come as no surprise that the WP demands similar disclosure of Conflict of Interest when:

...you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).

and...

As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies...

I hope this helps. It would be nice to see a list of independent TM research, which utilizes good controls. Perhaps you could help create such a list? That would be very helpful given your own knowledge of the matter at hand.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kala Bethere, I was called away on another project for a few days. In response to your suggestion of a list, if I had kept a list over the years as I was reading these papers, satisfying your request would be easy. Unfortunately, I did not keep a list. However, I can point to a few recent reviews that partially accomplish this task. These are on the blood pressure studies and other studies related to cardiovascular disease. As for "independent" studies, I cannot accept your insinuation that any author of research who happens to be located at Maharishi University of Management or another meditation-related institution is not independent. The reasons you have mentioned do not appear to apply to these faculty members. According to the logic you have used so far, any researcher who happens to be at a technology school, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, should be considered to be in conflict of interest if he or she publishes research on a technology topic that is studied at the Institute. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better analogy would be to researchers at the "Tobacco Institute" conducting research on the effects of tobacco. We wouldn't consider them to be independent either. That doesn't automatically mean that their research is invalid, but it does make it more suspect.   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea...but how often would "Tobacco Institute" research on the effects of tobacco be published in peer review journals? --Uncreated (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here one such review that is currently cited in the article: James W. Anderson, Chunxu Liu and Richard J. Kryscio, "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis," MARCH 2008 | VOLUME 21 NUMBER 3 | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, pp. 310-316. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChemistryProf. Unfortunately both of the "Anderson"/ University of Kentucky reviews, apparently originally put out as attempts to conceal the damning Ospina-Bond independent reviews (both Anderson studies were pushed massively across the internet by the TM Org, post publication), have issues with Independence and funding sources). As with many TM scientific studies, the second Anderson study did not correct for placebo effect, it used "health education" as it's control.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another review cited in the article. It is older, but you might find it interesting because it analyzed and compared the effect sizes of studies that used research designs of differing strengths. Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reviews are some of the best sources for scientific and medical topics, and we should rely on them rather than primary or non-independent sources, though we can use those sparingly.   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, don't be fooled. The "Anderson" reviews just have the bias and poor methodology hidden. They've been pushed extensively to media and web sources despite these issues!--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Transcendental_Meditation.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede we have the sentence that includes "Transcendental Meditation is at the core of the Transcendental Meditation movement,^{[citation needed]}" This statement is uncited and a citation has been requested since Nov 2009. If a citation is not provided in the next few days, I think it needs to be removed. --BwB (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty axiomatic. Are you disputing the assertion?   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with that sentence. It seems superficial and arbitrary. It's like saying that Yoga is the core of the Yoga Movement. What's the point?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to connect TM to TMM. How would you characterize the relationship?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "Transcendental Meditation is original core product of the Transcendental Meditation movement,[citation needed] and is part of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.[15]" You had mentioned creating a page with price listings, perhaps there could be a link then to the various TM Org product listings, and their current prices.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are already connected by their names. It's obvious. There is no need to have a special sentence to say they are connected or to introduce a related article. There are other opportunities for readers to access the TMM article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in the intro. How about something like this: "TM is part of the Transcendental Meditation movement and an element of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health".   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Keithbob. I was thinking more of a link to a separate page listing TM Org meditation services and their current prices, since that was something Will Beback had suggested. Either way, the wording could be worked on. Perhaps it would be best to have a sentence that shows the different orgs (e.g. SIMS) that gave birth to the current org, so the sentence would truly inform the reader as to the historical groups that formed the current organization?--Kala Bethere (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If we do not have a source to support the statement that ""Transcendental Meditation is at the core of the Transcendental Meditation movement" then are we not in violation of WP:POV and WP:OR? --BwB (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it is an original concept developed by Wikipedia editors, or that it is a POV not shared by most?   Will Beback  talk  17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. Just that this assertion needs a source or else it is POV or OR. --BwB (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it from "at the core of" to "part of" to minimize any POV.   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the School section we have the sentence "In 2006, the Terra Linda High School in San Rafael, California canceled plans for Transcendental Meditation classes due to concerns of parents that it would be promoting religion.^[10]" What do others editors think of using another encyclopedia as a source? Is this ok with Wiki rules? --BwB (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BWB. I've added a more compliant ref.(olive (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Probably should change the opening paragraph to read:

"It is was once one of the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world." Past tense.

A Pub Med search for "Mindfulness" meditation research brought up Two-Thousand One Hundred and Forty-two hits (2142). It is claimed Mindfulness research is growing at a near exponential rate (according to Jon Kabat-Zinn).

A Pub Med search for Transcendental Meditation only brings up One-Hundred and Eighty-one (181).

The claim that TM is both the most widely research and widely practiced appears to no longer be true. I believe there are over 7 million Sri Sri Ravi Shankar initiates.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources if we are to change the text. --BwB (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Transcendental Meditation and "Mindfulness" at pubmedcentral.nih.gov findings: 181 cites for TM; 2142 for Mindfulness.

Jon Kabat-Zinn says: "if you plot the number of scientific papers with the word mindfulness in the title, you will find that in the past eight years, it seems to be growing exponentially (Figure 1, Ludwig and Kabat-Zinn, 2008; Kabat-Zinn, 2009)

Kabat-Zinn, (2009) Foreword to: Didonna, F. (Ed) Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness, Springer, New York, pp. xxv-xxxiii

Ludwig, D.S. and Kabat-Zinn, J. (2008) Mindfulness in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

http://books.google.com/books?id=llw470lSDAcC&lpg=PR4&ots=zLF5aWvg_p&dq=Clinical%20Handbook%20of%20Mindfulness&pg=PR27#v=onepage&q=&f=true --Kala Bethere (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today the Art of Living Foundation is the world’s largest volunteer based Non-Governmental Organization, active in over 140 countries. Its service projects, programs on yoga, meditation and stress elimination have benefited over 20 million people representing all walks of life, religions, cultures and traditions with its 5Hs program in the areas of Health, Homes, Hygiene, Human Values and Harmony in Diversity.

from [2]About.com

It looks like that line should either reworded or eliminated. Possible new wording if people want to keep it:

"It was, at one time, one of the most widely researched and practiced meditation methods around."

--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when I went through Pubmed I found these results:

search for Mindfulness = 200411 results

search for "Mindfulness" = 550 results

search for Mindfulness Meditation = 382 Results

search for "Mindfulness Meditation" = 111 Results

search for Transcendental Meditation = 1789 results

search for "Transcendental meditation" = 274 Results

--Uncreated (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content in place now is reliably sourced. Any other content added must be sourced to a reliable, verifiable source.(olive (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The sources do seem adequate, but are they expressing opinions or absolute truths? If the former then we should attribute them and perhaps move them from such a prominent location.   Will Beback  talk  11:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lede reads "It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world today." This seems to be a fair statement of the status of TM in the world, yes? It is well referenced, so why the debate? --BwB (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other views of TM that are equally well-sourced. The issue I raised is whether these specific assertions are absolute facts or opinions. If they are facts then they should probably have more than one source, since they are making exceptional claims. If opinions, they should be attributed and probably moved to a less prominent location.   Will Beback  talk  13:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have two facts - Fact 1: TM is the most widely researched form of meditation; and, Fact 2: TM is one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world. Is there evidence to negate these assertions? --BwB (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion above, it appears that there's some dispute. If they are facts, are there any other sources?   Will Beback  talk  13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do we need? There are currently 4 refs associated with this sentence in the article. --BwB (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigweeboy wrote: "I think we have two facts - Fact 1: TM is the most widely researched form of meditation; and, Fact 2: TM is one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world. Is there evidence to negate these assertions?"

Good question BwB. I think the answer is at one time, before meditation research was as popular as it is today, you could have made this Pro-TM statement with some authority. However with the widespread medical acceptance and insurance reimbursement for Mindfulness, this has caused a huge upsurge in other meditation research. TM research and practice is no longer the most widely researched, nor is the most widely practiced, and when it is researchered, it's rarely neutral or from a reliable secindary source (i.e. it violates WP:FRINGE) Therefore the statement is not neutral. I would recommend either dropping it or editing for more neutral POV and to be less of an absolute statement. Times change, we should try to remain aware as old, closely held opinions change.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bold per concern... Kala if you use a semicolon to indent instead of a colon the text will show as bold.(olive (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure how you can make that statement KB that TM is no longer the most Researched meditation. Do you have any sources for that? When one does a search of Pub Med one finds significantly more research on TM than Mindfulness Meditation. --Uncreated (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world today." This is what it says in the lead. The assertion is qualified by the word "reported" which refers to the secondary sources it references. The assertion is further qualified by the phrase: "one of the most". I don't see any way that it can be said to be inaccurate or out of compliance with Wiki policy.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many opinions of TM. For example, some people have reported that it is a quasi-paganist practice, or something like that. Why would we include one set of views but not others? What I suggest is that we create a short paragraph at the end of the intro which summarizes the praise and criticism of the technique. That is how many articles achieve NPOV in their intros.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point Kala. We try to avoid using bold type on the talk pages. Thanks, --BwB (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncreated. If I look at your list in PubMed search, is it not showing 200411 results for Mindfulness? That's way more than TM! It appears the opening statement is therefore outdated and needs to be updated, based on your own search! BTW, I would recommend searching in the title and abstract for mention and then compare.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BwB. I did try to remove the bold from the article several times, to no avail. Not sure why it would not let me remove it. But thanks for noticing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the sentence with more up to date references and updating the current state of affairs, thereby correcting for inaccuracies. Please note: search was made for Title and Abstract of all current papers showing the words "Transcendental Meditation" or "Mindfulness" in the PubMed advanced search feature--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Olive is right, that's OR. You need a reliable source that says popularity has waned, in order for the article to say popularity has waned. Woonpton (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Woonpton, people even marginally familiar with TM initiation numbers, know it's popularity has dramtically declined. John Hagelin and other TM "Rajas" or TM Kings, have talked about how low instruction has dropped. Let's therefore look for a source, hopefully better than this one:

After the peak year of 1975, enrollment in "TM" courses has steadily declined, so much so that in 1977 the organization announced the opening of a whole new series of "advanced" courses, obviously devised in order to regain public interest and enthusiasm. These courses are intended to lead initiates to the "siddhis" or "supernatural powers" of Hinduism: walking through walls, becoming invisible, levitating and flying through the air, and the like. The courses have generally been greeted with cynicism, even though a "TM" brochure features a photograph of a "levitating" meditator (see Time Magazine, August 8, 1977, P. 75). Whether or not the courses (which cost up to $3000) will produce the claimed results -which are in the province of the traditional "fakirs" of India — "TM" itself stands revealed as a passing phase of the occult interest in the second half of the 20th century.

But this quick quote from [3] should just be shown as a quick example.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of content

I've removed WP:OR content from the lede. Neither source says specifically that any other form of meditation has become more popular, and a search is not considered a reliable source. To add content to this article we have several things to consider: The source must use the terms Transcendental Meditation, or TM (technique) and must say what you in someway are trying to add to the article. With an encyclopedia we can't look up different points of research and add them together to get another point then add that final point to the article . We are stuck and bound to the guides that define "encyclopedia" rather than "research paper" . I hope this makes some sense.(olive (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately just calling something unacceptable because it's a "search" is not sufficient. Databases generally are not published in one huge piece simply because they're so large. So queries are made for certain subsets of information one desires. The fact of TM interest and it's decline is well known. So I wouldn't worry Little Olive Oil, we should be able to find some different sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an assertion like that we'd need a sources that explicitly says there's been a decline in interest. We can't just conclude that from database searches.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Will. --BwB (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find a compliant source for this kind of assertion. I don't think I've ever seen one but I'll take a look.(olive (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is the only source I've found although I didn't check some of the pay per view sources...[4] and there could have been information there. The other possibility is to remove the TM claim, but I'm not sure that would be a correct way to deal with this since there seem to be multiple sources that say it is the most widely researched like this one...[5] (olive (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Kala, I think one or both of your hypotheses can be added back into the article if you find citations instead of simply stating these as facts. I certainly agree that TM is not in the public eye the way it was in the 1960s and early 1970s, and I agree that the Art of Living organization (founded by a disciple of Maharishi) is very large and successful. All we need is citations in reliable sources. David spector (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought to post something here as a reference for this discussion.

• "No original research, is one of three core content policies" on Wiki
• Policy in a nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a critical view on the subject is not allowed objectivity of the article is questionable. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda. Reliability of external link is not questionable, since it is a document that is validated from German high court. For the external link: http://trancenet.net/research/index.shtml

The TM movement attempted to suppress this report in German courts, but its findings were upheld by the German high court (The Federal Republic of Germany: OVG Muenster: 5 A 1152/84, The Bundesverwaltungsgericht: 23.5.87 7 C 2.87, The Bundesverfassungsgericht: 1 BvR 881/89).

Zofra102 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline on links is here: WP:EL. If the aim is to link to the German report, then it'd be best to link to it that page directly, such as

• "THE VARIOUS IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE PRACTICE OF TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION" INSTITUTE FOR YOUTH AND SOCIETY BENSHEIM 1980

Perhaps the main objection to linking to this material would be the question of its copyright. Does anyone know if the website is authorized to publish it? If they don't then we probably shouldn't link to it. Alternatively, if there's reason to believe it's a reliable source then we can use it as a source without linking to it.   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a reliable source. A lower court found that the report was propaganda and completely unscientific and ordered the government to retract it. An appellate court ruled that the lower court didn't have the authority to order a retraction but didn't dispute the finding of the lower court that the report was flawed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about any of this. Is there any source that explains what all of this is about? If this matter, whatever it is, has gone to an appellate court maybe we should be reporting on it in the article.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy's spin on all this, which is poached straight from Orme-Johnson's website, ignores the most salient point. The report stands as the valid and official findings of the German ministry. The TM Organization sued to force the German Ministry to retract its report. The courts ultimately refused to do so. The appellate court held that the lower court had no jurisdiction to order the report retracted. It was unnecessary to address the lower court's findings about the merits of the report, because the lower court had no jurisdiction to make those findings. They are void and have no effect whatsoever. To try to hang your hat on findings held to be legally incompetent, and to suggest that the appellate court endorsed those findings, is either a complete misrepresentation, or a fundamental misunderstanding. The German report most definitely should be referenced as a reliable source.Fladrif (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among the secondary sources reporting on this are the San Francisco Chronicle [6]Fladrif (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind the Trancenet link is an alternative POV from a former TM teacher who also has significant inside TM Org experience as well as clinical expertise with recovering TM practitioners. It's an extremely relevant POV. Unless we're looking to bias the article towards the TM.org POV, this should be included for balance and to maintain a NPOV.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can 1 person's view be consider "significant"? --BwB (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They help provide a POV that's missing. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." WP:NPOV--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much in here that I am tempted to respond to, but I'll refrain, reminding myself that there is such a thing as an unexpressed thought. Confining myself to the article itself, I don't think it appropriate to include, in the "External Links" section, links to websites of individual pro- or anti- TM sites, other than the official website of the TM Movement, identified as such. There are appropriate places in text of this or related articles to include the information that Kala Bethere believes should be reflected, with appropriate references. But these other sites would not qualify as reliable sources on a number of counts, and should not be included here as External Links. Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not Wikipedia complaint per reliable sources.(olive (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Agree with Flad and Olive that the site is not Wiki compliant and should not be included. --BwB (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for external links is lower than for sources, though this might not meet even that lower bar. I haven't had time to read the document and I don't know anything of its provenance or accuracy. We can leave it out unless the topic it covers is otherwise notable.   Will Beback  talk  12:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that since the link sources important alternative TM teachers opinions, former TM practitioners and helpful information on the TM techniques themselves it is an important resource for users to develop a more balanced opinion. The site maintainer is also currently a professional involved in assisting TM meditators, so it remains a helpful resource for those whose TM experience gets out of hand. But balanced opinion and it's directly relationship to TM entries would be the primary reason for inclusion.

I could however see a reason for putting it under a separate heading to avoid confusion with the official TM website, for example Links expressing alternate views on TM" or "Non-Official Links".--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala, per Fladrif above, the site is not Wikipedia compliant. We don't create NPOV in an article by linking to sites because they provide alternate views. With reliable, verifiable sources that reference directly the topic of the article, and only then, can we add content into an article to help create that neutral point of view. (olive (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Little Olive Oil, unfortunately Fladrif merely expressed an opinion on the matter, with no substantial reasons. Just stating the reasons as being "on a number of counts" isn't very helpful, I'm sorry to say. Certainly a site that contains TM techniques, the mantras, etc. from TM teachers should be very relevant to an entry on TM! And the site is currently administered by a TM teacher and a person still very involved in assisting TM meditators.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala. I'm not sure which site you mean, but maybe provide a link here....Any site must be reliable. From WP:Reliable Sources "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article..." if the site is presented by a group with a clear position, a religious group for example and isn't a recognized reputable publication then we can't really use it as a source.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

If it's used as a link instead of a source then the relevant guideline is WP:EL, not WP:RS. If it's a site that's just hosting a document then the only reliability issue is whether they have an accurate copy or translation (and if they have copyright permission).   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.

Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."

Independent sources

"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "

"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.

Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.

Agree and removed most of them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Jmh649.

It appears some of the refs have been entered to deliberately conceal TM Org affiliated authors. For example:

--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include discussion for List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE here.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a great review of TM from 2007. Will be rewording much of this section to comply with the most recent research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start. The next step is to significantly cut back on the text which relies exclusively on the citation of primary sources and overwhelm the relative handful of reviews that are the only appropriate sources to be used here. Thanks for getting involved.Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good of you could give the editors here a look at what will be posted before you make radical changes in this article. This is a highly contentious article, and including the editors who consistently work on this article would be an appropriate and is the accepted procedure on these pages. Thanks(olive (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Since I know you were participating on the Fringe and RS Noticeboards, as were most of the regular editors of this article, you can hardly claim to be suprised by these edits. The consensus of the previously-uninvolved editors that this was the appropriate approach to address the interrelated POV, Fringe, RS and COI issues with these articles was as close to unanimous as anything I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia, and it was a fairly large group of editors. Or is this yet another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?Fladrif (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this material had been discussed before it was added then we might not be in this mess.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faldrif. The notice board discussion, and it is a discussion, is on the ME studies not the TM studies. Whether I am surprised or not is not an issue. Changes on a contentious article should be discussed.

If you want to discuss what is on going on the Fringe Notice Board that is another, and separate discussion.(olive (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You know that is false, so why are you making this claim? The problems with the health-related research on TM were specifically discussed on those noticeboards, as well as the problems with the ME research. The discussion of this article included specifically the improper weight and reliance being put on primary studies by TM-Org affiliated authors, and the fact that the Ospina_Bond meta-analysis is the kind of source that is properly used in preference to those sources, and should be prominently featured and the primary sources not used in an attempt to "rebut" it. Fladrif (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link above, but it may have been missed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Transcendental_Meditation.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif. The initial post on the Fringe NB is on the ME studies, and is ongoing. I did not even consider the posts on the Wikiproject Medicine page as Noticeboard posts. Whatever changes are suggested to this article and to any of these article because they are contentious should be discussed. I would ask that any new editors please abide by that convention.(olive (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Wikiproject Medicine page functions as the noticeboard for issues related to WP:MEDRS. From my experience with this and related pages, the "convention" of discussing edits before making them is not widely followed. WP:BRD is another convention, and perhaps as well suited.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Replacing old primary research with recent review articles is not controversial. As the health effects falls under WP:MED the refs should follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is contentious. Making massive changes as is being done is not the norm. However I am one editor so there is very little I can do in the face of such aggressive editing.(olive (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I note that you have an admitted COI Little Olive Oil along with TimidGuy. Perhaps it would be best for you to just observe? I'd hate to see your IP get blocked or something like that.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was this discussed at the Medicine page, it was also discussed in great detail at the Fringe Noticeboard. You actively participated in that discussion. Between those two Noticebards, I count six uninvolved editors and four involved editors who are unanimous about the appropriateness of this approach to the TM Medical research material. Zero uninvolved editors agree with you or TimidGuy on this. You cannot seriously contend that this was not discussed at length, or that you were unaware of it. To claim that this wasn't discussed there is simply false.Fladrif (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Fladrfi. I did not see it that way. I saw this discussion as ongoing and whose focus despite the mud throwing to be about the ME effect. I also was aware of this comment by a knowledgable editor who actually looked at the ME studies and seems to be saying they are relaible. [7] I felt that this would be a legitimate discussion on the ME talk page. Sadly prejudice and bias dominate, and incivilities are accepted and condoned. (olive (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing contentious here. We have reviews that cover the health aspects of this topic. We reflect here what these reviews conclude. Easy yes? The review BTW deal specifically with TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Lead your addition to the article does not, in fact, summarize the state of research on the TM technique or the research in the article as should happen in a lead, but is a meta study which summarizes a few studies. A very different thing. Further this is not a medical article although yes, there is research on the health effects. Your addition of such content to the lede of an article that is contentious (please read the tag at the top of this page) is not the standard . However for the moment I won't remove it for discussion, but instead will hope that with more knowledge of the area you are dealing with, you will change it yourself.(olive (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Is there a recent comprehensive review published in the peer reviewed scientific literature that disagree with the 2007 review referenced in the lead?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Jmh649's edits, just under half of the article was devoted to the medical research. Now it's about 20%, still a significant part of the article. There's no reason the medical research should not be mentioned in the intro. Wherever medical research is discussed, we should follow WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at the numerous places were this is being discussed is that the health section should be based on scientific reviews of the literature. I have left in a couple primary research studies but feel by and large my changes conform with the current community consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the lede as I said in no way reflects the research on the TM technique. A lede does not require a review based on a few studies. But per WP:lead serves "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article" The lead should per this definition reflect and summarize the state of the research as a whole, and what is in the article as a whole. It doesn't and should be rewritten or removed. (olive (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(undent) Which part of the lead do not reflect the article as it now stands?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred peer reviewed studies on the TM technique most of which found benefits. The second paragraph describe only a meta study and creates the impression that there are no health benefits. This is not NPOV, and creates a bias in the article. The lead must accurately summarize the research and the research in the article to comply with lead. As it stands right now it doesn't and must be changed per WP:Lead section and WP:NPOV.(olive (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The lead should summarize the article, and the article should be consistent with WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, and other policies and guidelines. We're not here to summarize all the research conducted. Reviews and meta-analyses serve as secondary sources by separating the wheat from the chaff.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I say summarize the research, I mean should accurately reflect the research and must summarize the article, nor does one meta study serve to summarize what is in this article. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough..(olive (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It can either be removed or rewritten,unless I'm missing something. (olive (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nice job, Doc. I do think this is quite an improvement. I wonder if we could somehow note the scope of AHRQ -- that it covered studies on adults done through 2005 and excluded research that wasn't on adults. There was a review in Pediatrics last September on meditation interventions among youth. Seems like we could include that in the article, since it covers the area outside the scope of AHRQ. (David S. Black, Joel Milam and Steve Sussman, Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy, PEDIATRICS Volume 124, Number 3, September 2009) TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy, can you point to a PDF or copy of this article in full? It's impossible to determine what, if any, impact this has in regards to TM. Thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review quoted in the lead does accurately summarize the research. I do not understand the issue? Do you have another scietific review that disagrees? I think Timids suggestions are good. Fell free to add the review from pediatrics. Will look at it latter today.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can say the review in the lead summarizes the content below taken from the article. The review in the lede accurately describes itself and one other paragraph but goes no further than that.(olive (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A 2008 review however found a 4.7 mmHg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mmHg diastolic blood pressure decrease in those who practiced TM verse a controls group.[53] Using a quality scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.[54] In a 2005 done by the Maharishi University of Management which looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure found a decrease in mortality of 23%.[55] Another study published the same year by the same group found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[56] In 2006, a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.[57] Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain.[58]

Will add in the other reviews and remove the remaining primary research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see several non-compliant, biased BP research is being re-added. I thought we weren't going to add non-compliant non-Independent sources? Several studies have TM-related authors. The Anderson study is funded by a TM sponsor (they funded his salary). Should this be included? There's also a poor quality study which compares SBP to health education! I thought we were getting away from junk science and TM Org affiliated research, no?--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement here among some editors has been to remove primary sources. Per Wikipedia, independent studies refers to publications, rather than researchers. From WP:RS "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources." I believe the studies that were or are in place were peer reviewed which means they were independently published from the TM org. If they are now being removed it is because some editors believe peer-reveiwed, primary sources are not compliant per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you will take this into account. The AHRQ is a world leader in quality research which is why it is used as the main summary of TM results on health in the lead. Hope this answers Olives question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lead is a lead and introduces the content in the article . I don'r believe we can choose a source and say this one is better so we leave out the rest of the information, I understood you to say you would be adding summaries of the other reviews, or did I misunderstand. As well, the content in place now is a repeat of what is in the article. It probably should be summarized, and then a summary of the rest of the content in that section added to it. I'm happy to work on this later, unless you prefer to do it At any rate, some comments.(olive (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

When one deals with health care / medicine one used WP:MEDRS not WP:RS. One also needs to take into account the authors and who published it as part of the WP:V policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised before. Will Beback put the following text in the history section after I had deleted it per MEDRS: "In 2009, Robert Schneider of Maharishi University of Management presented the results of a nine-year study on African Americans at a conference of the American Heart Association. Schneider reported a nearly 50% decrease in heart attack, stroke, and death among those who practiced TM.[93]". Now that we're applying MEDRS, I'd like to ask again whether it's appropriate to have this in the article, since MEDRS proscribes conference presentations and popular media. TimidGuy (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be excluded, as should mention of the published study, as it violates WP:FRINGE, WP: MEDRS and is a primary source. It's just more TM junk science, utilizing health education as a poor control.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]