Talk:Transcendental Meditation: Difference between revisions

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Pre Feb 2005):
• Archive 2 (Nov 28-30 2005) Disclosing Mantra:
• Archive 3 (Nov 30 2005 -Feb 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (Feb-10th May 28, 2006)
• Archive 5 (May-28th June 25, 2006)
• Archive 6 (25th June-19th July 2006)
• Archive 7 (19th July-31 Oct 2006)

About the Technique

I think there could be more basic information on the TM technique itself, very close to the front of the entry. I propose adding some sentences after the lead paragraph, before the History section. This would explain what distinguishes TM from other techniques of meditation, why teachers say it works (the nature of the experience itself), how it is taught around the world, how it has been applied to different segments of society, etc. I think this kind of info is what people are seeking in an encyclopedic entry.Purple Iris 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Iris. It's odd that your user account doesn't show your earlier activity.

I think what you're proposing is a good idea. Take a look at the Procedures and Theory section. I wonder if a couple of the points you're proposing are already there. I wouldn't let this section get too long, but go ahead and add, and then editors can condense if they feel the need. Ideally the information would be sourced.TimidGuy 12:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I added more descriptive info to the lead so a reader can have some basic knowledge right from the start. Purple Iris 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You must not have been logged in when you added the material, because it shows up as an anonymous edit.

I like what you've added, since it does a good job of characterizing the technique. And uses sources to go along with the statements. I was surprised that you added it to the lead, since above you said you were going to add it after the lead. At first I thought that it violated the guideline that the lead should be a short summary. But now I think it works. We'll see what other editors think. The sourcing seems to help keep it from sounding POV.TimidGuy 12:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about the date 1958. In the history section it says 1957.TimidGuy 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I signed in before I did the edits - and I just signed in again. I added the Purple Iris 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) after my entry....am I missing something? I added the text in the lead because I thought it fleshed out TM a bit more, before going into a substantial history section a lot of which is about the movement...I think it works, we'll hear from others...1958 was the date I was told was the inauguration of Maharishi's movement - January 1, 1958. That's what it says in literature of the early TM movement (The Torch Divine).Purple Iris 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you were signed in, then it's odd that your user name didn't show up in the History. Anyway, sounds like you're doing it right. Thanks for your additions to the lead. Looks like we have consensus on deleting the final section on references in popular culture.TimidGuy 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

References to pop culture

I feel the song references in this section should be deleted, because they do not add to any store of knowledge a reader would want to come away with. They are suggestively negative about TM, and therefore don't express neutrality. There are many positive references in popular music to the practice of TM, but these don't have a place here either, in my opinion. I don't see the value of this section at all. Anyone agree? Purple Iris 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even clear that the second excerpt is about TM. If they are clearly about TM, I don't have a problem with them staying. I don't see the POV problem. It's okay to quote reliable sources who have negative opinions without violating WP:NPOV. -THB 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, THB. Thanks again for your occasional cleanup of the article. I think Iris is saying that to present both points of view one might want to quote some of the great songs referencing TM in a positive light (my favorite being Steve Wonder) -- but that it's rather pointless, since it's really just trivia. This section does seem to violate the guideline regarding trivial matter tacked on at the end--Avoid trivia sections in articles. I'd be happy to see it go.TimidGuy 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I got you now, and agree that having a "pop culture" section trivializes the subject. -THB

Thanks, THB. I think we have a consenus. I'll remove the section. It does pain me, though, to remove the contributions of others. But it just doesn't seem to add to the article by saying something about what TM is.TimidGuy 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia. It's an encyclopedia. I don't like removing others' contributions either, but sometimes the material is just not appropriate. -THB 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pagels and unified field

I put the Pagels quote in a separate section, with the subhead "Philosophical framework," since the quote is explicity related to the philosophical framework and not the scientific research. No research has been done on the unified field and TM. I see that an anonymous editor has deleted the heading and has put it back into the scientific research section. I hope that person will stop by here and give a rationale. Otherwise, I may eventually put that subhead back. I think it's important for readers to know that Pagels is not commenting on the research.TimidGuy 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I now think that the anonymous editor made this change inadvertently. If you look at the edits, you can see that the person was just sort of messing around, deleting the whole section and then putting it back.TimidGuy 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloomfield information

I removed the information regarding Harold Bloomfield's arrest. It seemed pointless and didn't contribute to information about Transcendental Meditation or the Natural Law Party. There were hundreds of NLP candidates. Is it relevant to the entry if any one of those persons is subsequently arrested sometime in their lives? If there were somehow a pattern, like that of priests in the Catholic church, then it might be relevant. As it stands, the evidence is that Bloomfield's arrest appears to be an isolated instance.TimidGuy 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cult section

I've been editing the cult section because it was simply a list of references and said nothing about why TM is alleged to be a cult. So I researched the sources and put in more detail. I also added an opposing point of view.TimidGuy 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trademark issue

I propose to delete a sentence at the beginning of the article that states, “Transcendental Meditation is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.”

It is confusing to refer to Transcendental Meditation as a "movement" when it is a specific mental technique. It’s not the name of the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation program.

Also, as a technical legal matter and practical matter, to refer to “Transcendental Meditation” also as a "movement" isn’t appropriate. Transcendental Meditation is a registered service mark under the class of educational services, as a description of a specific, proprietary meditation technique. The owner of the mark is the one who has the exclusive right to control its definition and commercial use, and this is not a usage it has consented to. It is important that the term Transcendental Meditation be used correctly. As the Wikipedia entry about trademarks notes, an organization holding a trademark must actively enforce it in order to retain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 12:53 8 November 2006 UTC (UTC)

I think it is a lot more simple then that. Look around the web, look at reliable sources. Look at other encylopedias. How do they reffer to TM? Take a look and let me know what you find. Sethie 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at three dictionary definitions at dictionary.com. They all defined it narrowly as a meditation technique using a mantra. But in the case of a trademark, it's not a matter of convention. The owner of the trademark has the legal right to stipulate the usage. Otherwise, the lawyer guys get involved. : ( TimidGuy 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great if you're satisfied, then we'll leave it at that. Sethie 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.TimidGuy 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Canter & Ernst study

I've just been looking at this study and realized that this paragraph is misleading. What the authors mean by “negative” is that TM didn’t have a more beneficial effect than other programs. They are using the term in a technical scientific sense -- something a layman may not understand.TimidGuy 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose to add a little more detail about this study, since the reader may not have any idea what is meant by cognitive function. Plus, I think it's important for the readers to see an example of a study that showed a great effect and an example of a study that showed no effect. TimidGuy 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Learning TM

I've made a few clarifications - the standard format for learning TM is the seven-step procedure, which has been in place for many years. The "various formats" in which TM was once taught is not relevant here. I also changed the world "performed" to "practiced".Purple Iris 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this Iris. You're right -- it's been the same systematic 7-step procedure since at least the mid 1960s. Maybe even before then. This is one of the hallmarks of the technique. TimidGuy 12:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved section and other changes

I've moved the section about TM being no more effective than other relaxation techniques to the section pertaining to research about TM as it seems a more appropriate location rather than "criticisms". I removed an addendum from that section which was based on a misunderstanding. The writer appears to have mistaken the conclusion that "TM is no more effective than other relaxation techniques" for "TM is ineffective". I've also added a fact tag on a claim I would like verified about fee being used to fund programs in poor countries, and I've remove a piece of clear spam from something called "invisible America". Jefffire 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the article. Good changes. TimidGuy 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Move Global Country section to separate article

I feel like this article is shaping up and that the biggest weakness now is its unwieldy size and inclusion of material that's tangential to Transcendental Meditation. In particular, it seems like the long section on the Global Country of World Peace could be moved to a separate article in Wikipedia. We would still leave a short paragraph in the Criticism section calling attention to this article, and would direct readers to it. Also, we would add material at the beginning of the Global Country article explaining what the Global Country is and why it was formed. This proposal is in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline on Article size. TimidGuy 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect wikis

In wikipedia, when we reffer to something within wikipedia, we create a double bracket. When we link to something external, we use single brackets and create a link. Please let me know why you feel an exception to this is helpful in this case. Sethie 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Thanks for any fixes. There are lots of things that could be tidied up. Note that you had inadvertently used double brackets to create the external links. Also, as I understand it, external links can be done in two ways: 1) simply putting brackets around a URL and putting that URL in the correct location; 2) putting a word or words along with the URL inside the brackets so that the words become an external link. (I kind of liked this but do let me know if you think it should be otherwise.) I've noticed that the icons by every link seem to indicate whether it's an internal or external link.

I'm still fairly new to all this and have only recently begun to learn how to make links, etc. I do hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, and correct any mistakes I make. TimidGuy 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about what's right or what's wrong, what I do know is that how the links are set up now, I have not seen them done that way in any other article, WITHIN an article. I have seen them done that way at the END of an article. In every wikipedia article I have looked at, if the letters show up in blue, inside the article, it is a link to another wikipedia article, not to an outside link. So actually I purposefully used the double brackets to set up an external link... because they ARE external links. :)

If you can find any other wikipedia articles that are formatted like this section.... :) I will be surprised. If you cannot, I ask that we format this section of the article like all of the others, and I request that I be more careful when we do that Sethie 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll just have to look around and see what other articles do. : ) You make a good point that it's important to observe Wikipedia conventions.

Regarding double brackets: After your edit, the numerals appeared like this: 1. Seems like it should have been like this: [1] Very minor point.

Found an example in the first article I looked at: [1] But you're right, all the other text links were Wikipedia links.

Looked at a second article, no instance of text links to external content. I'm inclined to agree with you, that these should be citations rather than text links. It may be better to put a short definition into the context of the Wikipedia article on TM for each of these points, rather than directing readers away from the Wikipedia article. How about if we leave them like they are for now, and then change them after I get a chance to briefly define each of these terms? Or go ahead and change them now if you want.TimidGuy 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant. TimidGuy 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

oops, the Wikipedia markup didn't show what I meant to illustrate above regarding brackets. How about we forget the point about brackets. : ) TimidGuy 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea of a short definition. If you're willing to do that I don't see a need to change them.

Thanks right back to you for going for the route of us trying to communicate. 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You could do both. It's always good to have references and besides vandalism, the biggest problem I see with Wikipedia is no references. -THB 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, THB. That's what we'll do then. I'll add a short definition and we'll also have links to the references. And per Sethie's observation about tacit Wikipedia convention, we'll make them simple external links that appear as numerals after the terms rather than text links.TimidGuy 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's disturbing to click what looks like a wikilink and BAM! you're at some commercial spam website. That's why it's nice to be able to distinguish them. -THB 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Welll said. Thanks again, Sethie and THB. This has been quite helpful. I believe there are a number of such links in this article. TimidGuy 02:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

New guy

Sorry, I had no idea I had to coordinate via a "talk page". Thanks, Sethie, for taking the trouble to point this out to me (and without asserting "vandalism"!) and giving me the link. Nothing whatsoever about this is mentioned in the "editing tutorial" and my first clue that something was wrong was when my stuff started disappearing. However, now that I'm clued in I'd be happy to discuss things before editing. --Tanaats

Yeah... it would be nice if there was a notice on the actual article page (there is a notice on this talk page) asking people to cordinate before making big changes.... this only goes for articles which have a history of conflict.

Again, as per my request and the notice at the top of this page- just check in about "big changes," :), which is of course vague.

As far as your edits disapearing, guess what? You have the same power. You can make Timidguy's removal of your edits dispear. I'm not reccomending it, I'm just saying, no one here is boss. Peace Sethie 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie, I won't do anything without discussing it first. Tanaats 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Please! No! More! Edit! Wars! & see WP:3RR. -THB 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tanaats. Thanks much for appearing here on the discussion page. And thanks so much, Sethie, for explaining more fully on Tanaats' Talk page, as well as for your kind comments about my work on the article. And I agree with you, THB, about avoiding edit wars. It's great having both of you here.

Thanks for the welcome. I agree about avoiding edit wars too, now that I have a clue about what an edit war is.  :) Tanaats 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

My main concern, Tanaats, was the need to cite reputable sources when inserting material. TimidGuy 11:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. The page is chock-a-block with standard TM presentation material with no references. Tanaats 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

I'm fairly new to the article myself, having been here in Wikipedia a couple months. And fairly new to Wikipedia. Most of this article was here when I came. Anyone else have an answer? Should, for example, all of the material in the History section be sourced?TimidGuy 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Tanaats

Hello, Tanaats. Again, I apologize for deleting some of your additions. I didn't realize you were new to Wikipedia and assumed you were seeing my Edit Summaries on the History page -- and seeing my pleas to discuss.

Thanks. No problem. I apologize for making newbie error. My only excuse is anyone reading the tutorial would think that the next step would be to pitch in and start editing! And neither did the tutorial mention a History page, I only noticed it by accident and took a look, then realized I didn't know what was going on. That should be in the tutorial too, methinks. Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

In a couple instances, you added comments as if this article were a sort of discussion. For example, you wrote: "However, this does not answer Denaro's claim of fraud." Generally in Wikipedia one doesn't assert one's opinions but finds material in reputable sources and then presents that, citing the source.

Well, IMO it's not an opinion but an easily observable fact. In the Denaro quote he talks much much more about "fraud", and there is only one reference to "science". Yet the paragraph "answers" this with an old debating trick (perhaps unwittingly used) of ignoring a person's major point and attacking a more easily attackable minor point. The idea is to make the audience forget the major points that were made and which had gone unanswered. Instead of my original insertion, how about "David Orme-Johnson, author of over 100 studies and lead researcher at the time Denaro was employed by Maharishi International University, answered Denaro's charge about science by saying that Denaro was not in a position..."? Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Thanks. That's good. Please make that change.

Thanks. Done. 17.216.38.108 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats (Does anyone know why my signature come up with an IP address? I did the "four tildes" thing which I understand is the right way to add a signature.)

In the case of the religion paragraph that you added, it would have been appropriate to find a reputable source that gives reasons why it's a religion, make those points in the article, and then cite the source. As it was, the material you added is considered "Original research" and isn't in accord with Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them.

Well, I can find a dictionary definitions of "religion". As for GC, the definition referenced in the article is definitely not the definition that I was taught by Walter Koch. As I said in my insertion, the original definition of GC was a direct perception of, and intimate loving relationship with, the "Personal God". The new official TM Organization definition is quotable because it can refer to a TMO web page. If I discuss what I was taught as the old definition of GC on my own site can I reference that? It would seem only fair, since merely by putting their doctrine on TMO websites that doctrine becomes eligible for quoting, whereas counter arguments that aren't on a web page can't be. Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

No, as I understand it, you can't discuss what you were taught. That's original research in the Wikipedia world. You have to find reputable sources who have made the points that you'd like to make. And I don't believe that you can reference your own web site. But please do read the guidelines yourself, in particular the guidelines on original research and citing reputable sources.

I'll try to find an acceptable method to contribute to the "religion" discussion. 17.216.38.108 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

If you want to rebut the point that the philosophical perspective that an underlying field of consciousness may be the same as the unified field, and if you want to characterize it as pseudoscience, again it's not really appropriate to simply assert it. As I understand it, you need to find a source that says this.

Well, let me think about that... "The connection between mind and physics has frequently been noted by physicists" seems like an unsubtantiated opinion that is not proven by the quote that follows. And if I understand you correctly, I need to find a quote that says "Consciousness is not the same as the Unified Field". So I'm not sure that there is a level playing field here, unless quoting from my website is just as allowable as quoting from TMO websites. But now I note that the paragraph just above it is an effort to debunk any consciousness-based factor in science, So, as a resolution, I propose that we (1) Delete or modify the ""The connection between mind and physics has frequently been noted by physicists" opinion, and (2) we put a statement in front of the "debunking" quote that says "The relationship between the mind and physics is a matter of dispute among physicists." Then the two following paragraphs would document the fact of and the nature of the "dispute". Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Your solution sounds good. Thanks.

Thanks. Done. See what you think. 17.216.38.108 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Also, I wondered why one would assert that a philosophical statement is pseudoscience, since by definition a pseudoscience would be presenting itself as a scientific theory verified by research. No research has been or will ever be done on this philosophical stance. It's not a scientific theory but a philosophical idea (and one that I am hoping to show is actually somewhat common among some of the most famous physicists of the 20th Century).

I'll drop that one since my proposal above would satisfy my concerns. Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

I hope this begins to explain my rash actions.

Oh, not rash at all. You had someone who, however, unwittingly, was not following the rules and I think you were completely justified. Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

I didn't, of course, delete the references you inserted. Again, thanks for coming to discuss. I hope that all of us together can create an excellent article. There has been some nice feedback lately on the changes that have been made in the past couple months.TimidGuy 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I do look forward to working together. Tanaats 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

Thanks so much. These are good points.TimidGuy 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And I thank you for helping me to get started. 17.216.38.108 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

You're welcome. Your edits are excellent.

(You may want to be sure to log in when you make changes. Helps keep track of who's doing what.)TimidGuy 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question above: your signature didn't work because you apparently weren't logged in.TimidGuy 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Long section -- headings needed

This section: "TM-Sidhi Program and the Maharishi Effect" is very long. Perhaps it could be broken down with some subsections as it is difficult to read such long uninterrupted passages on a monitor. -THB 01:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, THB. I agree. I had just been thinking the same thing. I was actually thinking of proposing that we move it to a new article. The TM-Sidhi program is a different technique from Transcendental Meditation. Most people who learn TM don't also learn the TM-Sidhi program. Also, the Maharishi Effect research is of quite a different kind than the research on Transcendental Meditation. If we were to move it to a new article, we would still leave a couple paragraphs about it in the criticism section and mentioning the contoversy. Either way, we need to add subheads. I'll work on that.TimidGuy 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Added the subheads. Now I'm thinking that on a similar topic, we should consider removing the subheads in the Political Activities section now that it's so much shorter. Having these subheads is misleading in the Table of Contents. For example, clicking on Global Country in the table of contents brings up a single sentence.TimidGuy 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Vedas

The sentence "The Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India" presents MMY's teaching as fact. The statement is, however, subject to dispute. For example, MMY's very qualifications to teach are disputable (for example, search for "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" on minet.org).

I propose a small change to create a statement that is indisputable: "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India".

(My home computer is fried and I'm off all next week, so if we don't finish this discussion today I'll check back after Thanksgiving weekend. For those in the US, have a Happy Thanksgiving!) Tanaats 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

I think this is a good change. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.TimidGuy 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the change is in. (And I again forgot to login before making it!). Tanaats 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-sidhi Veda readings

I think this sentence is a bit off (unless I completely misunderstand it): "Beyond the initial meditation technique, the TM organization offers numerous other programs and products, such as its TM-Sidhi program, which involves the silent mental recitation of selected yoga sutras of Patanjali [20], followed by portions the ninth and tenth mandalas of the Rig Veda chanted by Vedic pandits."

When I did the sidhis, we didn't have any Vedic pandits chant for us afterwards. :) How about "...followed by readings from portions of the ninth and tenth mandalas of the Rig Veda"? Tanaats 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been years since there were readings. And the statement as it currently reads also isn't accurate. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to give any details about the program.TimidGuy 02:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem now, someone changed it to "recorded portions". Tanaats 20:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pagels playing both sides of the net?

I'm a little confused by the Pagels quotes in "Philosophical framework". He is first quoted as being adamantly opposed to TM's position regarding consciousness and physics. But later he is quoted in the context of apparently being favorable to the concept. He is quoted as saying "When historians of science look back on the 1970s and '80s they will report that for the first time scientists constructed rational mathematical models based on the laws of nature which described the creation of the universe out of nothing."[24] The sub-atomic elements turn out not to be solid material particles. They are non-material waves of, and moving through, non-material fields".

This does not, however, say anything about consciousness at all!

I think having Pagels quoted in support of both sides of the issues looks a little silly. Maybe a different quote could be found in support of the pro-consciousness side? Tanaats 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point I was trying to make is that Pagels himself says that underlying everything is nothing -- which isn't that different from saying that an abstract field of consciousness underlies everything. But if you think it's weak we can change it.

I've been really impressed with your editing. I had tried to fix that point you raised earllier about the philosophy section but couldn't figure out how. Your fix was just right.TimidGuy 02:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Other physicists do support the concept that there is a relationship between mind and physics. In his book Perfect Symmetry, Pagels writes, "When historians of science look back on the 1970s and '80s they will report that for the first time scientists constructed rational mathematical models based on the laws of nature which described the creation of the universe out of nothing."[24] The sub-atomic elements turn out not to be solid material particles. They are non-material waves of, and moving through, non-material fields. In trying to understand that the basis of the universe as nothing, or non-material waves and fields, quantum pioneer Max Planck described consciousness as the source: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."[25]

I just re-read that section, I'd I ask that the Pagels quote be taken out along with the unsourced sentences. The quote does not support the relationship between mind and physics, it says, "The Universe came from nothing." Then goes on to state an unsourced idea which may or may not be associated with Pagels: The sub-atomic elements turn out not to be solid material particles. Then another unsourced sentence: They are non-material waves of, and moving through, non-material fields. Then an interpretation of what motivated Planck to make a certain statement: In trying to understand that the basis of the universe as nothing, or non-material waves and fields, quantum pioneer Max Planck described consciousness as the source.

I say keep the Planck quote and take out all the rest. Sethie 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. Good analysis. It seems like we need some sort of logic to lead up to Planck. Otherwise, it just comes out of nowhere and doesn't really make any sense to the reader. The point is that quantum mechanic has given us a view of reality that defies common sense -- that at the subatomic level particles have been found to have a nonmaterial basis. And that given that abstract underlying field, it's not a stretch to suggest that maybe it's consciousness. Which is why physicists have speculated on this. What do you think? In cany case, if we use this logic it should be better sourced.TimidGuy 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with some of what you write above. My approach is to just quote what people say and report on facts. I have no desire to "to lead" the reader to Planck, nor do I have a desire to make any "stretches," nor do I wish "to suggest" anything, not here at least. That is where my discomfort with the paragraph as it is lies- for me it is a stretch, it tries to lead and it suggests. There are plenty of physicists who agree with the connection between mind and matter, why not look to them? So far, you or whoever wrote this section has not demonstracted Pagels is one of them. Sethie 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think that it would be good to explain a bit for the reader (citing reputable sources, of course). But I think you're right that what I did is weak. I'll delete it until I have time to propose something that works better. Thanks to you and Tanaats for the feedback.TimidGuy 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Global country

Iris. Thanks for adding info about the Global Country. But I think this information should go in the new article that was created rather than in the TM article.TimidGuy 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Iris, I see that you also added the new material to the Global Country article. So I deleted it from the TM article. And per comments above (in item headed "Long section -- headings needed"), I removed the headings in the Political Activities section because now it's a short section and they're not needed.TimidGuy 12:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Move TM-Sidhii program to a new article

I think it worked well to move Global Country to a new article. This is in accord with the guideline on Article size. The article is still nearly double the length of the recommended size, and I was thinking that it could benefit from also moving the TM-Sidhi section to a new article. As with the Global Country material, I would leave a section in Criticisms that points to the new article and briefly mentions the issues. Another reason for the move is that the TM-Sidhi program is different from Transcendental Meditation (the topic of this article). Most people who learn Transcendental Medtiation don't also subsequently learn the TM-Sidhi program. Best not to conflate these two techniques.TimidGuy 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly a bit stunned you went ahead and did this after only giving it three days.

In the future, I would ask you to move much more slowly on such a big issue as moving a section of the article to a new article. Three days does not feel sufficient for me.... I didn't even have time to reply before you did it! I am a casual wikipedian,

I oppose this move, and will seek to have that article merged back into this one because:

A) Non-concenus move- you had no one's backing to do it

B) Despite your continuous reffernce to the article being about the TM technique, the article is currently NOT about the TM technique, but the TM movement.

C) Three days for such a major change?

D) When I look at the article, I see other places I would have preffered to trimmed down or moved before moving the TM-Siddhi program Sethie 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Since no one had objected, I went ahead and moved it. You were here during those three days discussing other points. I had assumed that if you objected, you would have said something.

A major part of the rationale is Article size. The article greatly exceeded the guideline on article size. Plus, I want to add more information about TM to this article. And Purple Iris and I are planning to add more content to the article on the TM-Sidhi program. If it is merged, then it will create a humongous article.TimidGuy 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in initial paragraphs

For me it is not neutral to state that there have been positive studies on TM without stating that there have been negative studies in the initial paragraph.

Timidguy you took it out saying that "The article doesn't mention any such studies; I propose that we make this paragraph completely neutral--just say that research has been done with no mention of benefits or negative effectts."

However in that initial paragraph, it does not make refference to any article.

Also you proposed to take out the preported positive and negative benefits, but left in the positive and took out the negative: "According to the TM organization, a body of scientific research shows that this meditation technique produces a variety of positive effects, for the community as well as individual practitioners."

We spent months on that paragraph. I request that before we make a significant change, we discuss it. Sethie 22:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. By "article" I meant this article on Transcendental Meditation. The summary is supposed to summarize what's in the article. But the article doesn't say anything about studies showing adverse effects. (By the way, Sfacets is the one who made a significant change without discussing it. I changed it back because it was in error.) I agree with you that that paragraph should be neutral. And thanks for coming here to discuss it. If you agree with my proposed change in the Edit Summary, I'll go ahead and make this change. I think that would be the best solution. It would simply say "extensive resarch has been done to determing whether Transcendental Meditation has effects on mind and body." TimidGuy 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sethie on this, either completely neutral, or both points of view. There needs to be balance. Sfacets 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sfacets. Sounds like you agree that we could make it completely neutral in the manner I suggest.TimidGuy 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the content discussing possible adverse side-effects from a scientific POV? I know for a fact that it used to be in the article, why was it removed?

Timidguy, I don't think your proposal covers it:

"extensive resarch has been done to determing whether Transcendental Meditation has effects on mind and body."

means that studies were only done to determine this, whereas most, if not all, of the studies were performed to determine whether TM had good or adverse effects on the mind. Sfacets 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Sfacets. I don't understand your response to my suggestion.TimidGuy 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets- oh my God, it has happened again, the TM article has been stolen!

Timidguy there used to be EXTENISVE links, refferences etc., about studies that claim TM has negative side effects. I just looked over the article and like Sfacets am surprised and curious to see that they have all been removed. I will look into it. Sethie 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the mean time, should we go ahead and rewrite it to make more neutral in the fashion that I suggested, given that the summary is referring to material that's not currently in the article? TimidGuy 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Timidguy: What I meant was that your proposed rewrite doesn't summarise the nature of the trials. The research was not on whether TM affected the mind & body, but rather what impact said effect has on the mind and body.

Sethie: Timidguy has done good work on the article, it's looking good! But yes, the vanishing criticism (even if unintentional) has to be seen to. Sfacets 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur, that I like where the article is, mostly.

I also agree that till the removed material is re-instated, a more accurate intro fits. Sethie 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sfacets, for your kind comment about my work on the article. I really appreciate it. And I'm pleased you both feel that the article is getting better.

Also, thanks to both of you for your input on the lead. To tell you the truth, I'd never felt comfortable with the phrase "positive effects" in the lead, but left it there because I knew that some TMer's felt that it was a statement of fact. To me it didn't seem neutral. Thanks to your feedback, it's now outta there.

I'm confident that as we continue to work together like this, the article will continually improve.TimidGuy 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing content on Talk page

Can anyone figure out what happened to all our discussion from Nov 1-15? It's gone and I don't see it in the archives.TimidGuy 17:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Found where it was deleted: [2]

Will try to fix.TimidGuy 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I can't fix it manually. Have asked an Admin to take a look. TimidGuy 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Sfacets made a change to two subheads and cited the Wikipedia Manual of Style as grounds for making the changes. I looked at the Manual of Style and couldn't find any points relevant to the changes he made. I posted on his Talk page, asking him to point me to the relevant guideline. He didn't respond. I think I'm going to change the headings back to the way they were, since I thought that they were more neutral that way. TimidGuy 12:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Reorganize Criticism section

I was just noticing that some of the criticisms are directly related to Transcendental Meditation and others are tangential, such as the sections on marketing herbal products and poltiical activities. Maybe we should divide the Criticism section into two parts so that the reader can easily see which ones are related to Transcendental Meditation and which ones are more general or peripherally related.TimidGuy 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya. Timidguy.

I believe that as it is right now, the article is about the Transcendental Meditation Movement- with all of it's aspects. Until we, as a group decide otherwise, I strongly oppose this suggestion.

I am not saying that the way the article reads is how it SHOULD be, and this split has been proposed 4-5 times (and at least once by you, I believe) since I have been an editor and each time has been rejected.Sethie 17:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Regarding the reorganization of the Criticism section -- I wasn't proposing to change the focus of the article exclusively to TM. I just wanted to make it clear which Criticisms are focused on TM and which are on related topics.TimidGuy 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm clear that you are saying you aren't proposing a reorganization of the article right now.

And, when I read, "I just wanted to make it clear which Criticisms are focused on TM and which are on related topics." what I hear is that you want to reorganize the criticism section to just focus only on criticisms which are related to the Transcendental Meditation Technique.

I strongly oppose this idea, since, as the article stands right now, it is not about just the Transcendental Meditation Technique, but the TM movement. Sethie 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. My apologies. I guess I'm not a very good writer, because I so often fail to say clearly what I mean. : (

I'm not proposing to focus only on criticisms related to Transcendental Meditation. I was simply proposing to group those together, and to then group the other criticisms together. I thought it was a minor change, and I went ahead and did it early this morning. Please let me know how you'd like it to be organized differently, and I'll change it. Thanks!TimidGuy 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya... ya know, clarity is... sometimes challenging for me too!

That totally works for me... and IF the article is ever split, that will make it easier! peace Sethie 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie! I'm pleased that you feel it works.TimidGuy 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of two-sentence intro to Criticism section

I deleted these two sentences. Sethie had tagged the first sentence as being unsupported original research. The second sentence violated the guideline on Avoid weasel words [3] and ad populum arguement.TimidGuy 12:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section of the article

I changed the sentence about the research on TM to read to determine "its effects on the mind and the body". This seems more accurate than the previous statement, to determine whether it has effects on the mind and body.

Purple Iris 22:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Newbie question re: keeping track of new comments

Well, I'm back after a week and there is a reasonable amount of new discussion. Question: If I reply or make a comment in a previous "thread", how will anyone know I did so? Is it necessary to track History to tell that someone has made a comment? Thanks! Tanaats 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. Welcome back. Hope you had a good vacation. To answer your question, as far as I know History is the only way to tell what comments have been added in previous threads. I do regularly check the History so will be alert to any comments you make. TimidGuy 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Other allegations regarding TM safety

I propose adding this citation [4] after the DeNaro quote starting with "It was obvious to me that [the] organization was so deeply immersed...".

I also propose adding this section after the "Suit alleges mental health required for safe practice". Otherwise, the TM article can leave people with the false impression that only people with a prior mental health problem are alleged to have developed problems from TM practice...

Other allegations regarding TM safety

---

Not all allegations about TM's safety posit prior mental health problems. In the same affadavit Attorney DeNaro (see above) also alleges:

"In fact, meditation was used as an excuse (probably valid) by my students for not completing a project much in the way a "virus" or "the flu" debilitates the average college student. The consequences of intensive, or even regular, meditation was so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system, that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic programs,"

"...In early December 1975, while the Maharishi was on campus, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to adopt a more honest, less commercial, approach to meditation, the Sidhi courses, the curricula, the disguised religious element masquerading as a science, inter alia He was aware, apparently for some time, of the problem, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, serious psychotic episodes, depressions, inter alia, but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it because the community would lose faith in the TM movement."[5] Tanaats 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Of course, from my perspective, having been on campus most of the time 1974-present, these statements are bizarre in the extreme. But, in Wikipedia, my opinion doesn't count. : (

I think we need to determine if an affidavit is considered a reputable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. After all, anyone can write an affidaviit and file it in a court house. Also, in this instance, the affidavit was filed in a suit that was settled out of court. If ultimately we can't agree regarding whether an affidavit is acceptable, we can take it through the various channels of dispute resolution.TimidGuy 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement is objectively true as written, as DeNaro did in fact allege these things. It's analogous to "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India" which is true as written, but could be struck out under the an analogous premise that "anyone can express an opinion about anything" and therefore such opinions are inadmissible. And for another example, Max Planck's statement is just a personal opinion. Or so I see things.

BTW, I respect your own observations, but opinions differ of course. For example, DeNaro's experience is quite congruent with what I experienced and saw all around me on Mallorca/Fiuggi TTC. This is the TTC that Billy Clayton, a "skin boy" at the time, called the "General Hospital" course because so many people were crippled by "heavy unstressing". MMY had to set up "clinics" for the heavy unstressors, where attempts were made to help them with such things as chiropractic and foot massage. One CP went home in such bad shape that his psychiatrist father had him hospitalized. When MMY heard this, he complained in an open meeting about why "such weak people" were allowed on the course in the first place, a response which I now consider to be quite callous in a "blame the victim" mode. I myself went home in such a dissociated state after six months of TTC that I could barely function, which is of course due to something being wrong with *me* according to defacto TMO docrine (since doctrinally there can not possibly be anything "wrong" with TM). And a friend of mine who lived in Fairfield for years is writing a book about her experiences, including the psychological casualties she encountered along the way. Well, enough of the BTW stuff.

Be that as it may, certainly we can check whether affadavits are acceptable. But it seems to me that "anyone can write anything" cuts quite a wide swath. I'm looking forward to exploring this with you.  :) Tanaats 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the affidavit verifiable? -THB 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of in a hurry so don't have much time. But here's a quick take. I think opinion is ok if it's been published by a reputable source, such as a mainstream publisher. An affadavit, as I understand it, doesn't have any special standing or authority. I believei that the article in Wikipedia on affidavit says that it's considered hearsay. I believe it's not admissible as evidence in court unless both parties agree to it. And generally, it's only used if the affiant isn't available for testimony. In the case of Denaro, I think that the affadavit was superseded by his testimony in court. I'm trying to get transcripts of the testimony and cross examination (since this affidavit keeps cropping up).

In any case, I so appreciate your cordial manner and friendliness. I feel like we can work together, with mutual respect of each other's views, and figure out these things.TimidGuy 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth.

Hi, Sethie. As I understand it, an interview isn't allowed in Wikipedia, if by that you mean gathering original quotes. And as far as I know, an affadavit isn't sworn before a judge. (Check out affidavit.] I'd be willing to wager that the affidavit isn't even part of the court documents, since it's not considered admissible evidence, and since in any case the affidavit was superseded by the testimony and cross examination.

If that is what I meant by an interview, yes, I agree with you.... I meant interview more like something that we read in the newspaper or Time magazine kind of interview. Wow- words suck at communicating, don't they?

As for the sworn before a judge, you know what... I assumed that was the case, and boy have my assumptions been oftentimes wrong!

So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does [[6]] and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in. Sethie 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with Carroll's book: it's filled with errors. For example, he says that Bob Rabinoff did a study on the Maharishi Effect related to crime, accidents, and crop production. No such study exists. There is no record of it in any index of scientific literature. He simply has that wrong. And he misrepresents what Randi says in his book.TimidGuy 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, do I hear that Timidguy... i oftentimes don't like what sources say, disagree with them and sometimes find factual errors in them as well.

I am not willing to comment overall on Carroll's book, that is too big a subject for me to tackle.... What I feel moved to say is IF some of Carroll's book is cited AND you find another source that contradicts the specific item from Caroll's book, PLEASE include it as well. That's what wikipedia is for me.... not truth, nowhere NEAR truth, but a collection of cited claims. Sethie 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Sethie -- and nicely articulated -- and shows clear understanding of Wikipedia.

Regarding the proposed addition: it seems weak to me. It just doesn't seem like the sort of reliable evidence that can make Wikipedia strong. The affadavit is a 20-year-old document of no special authority written by a disgruntled former employee who last set foot on campus over 30 years ago; published in part by a heavily biased book that has many careless errors of fact; and filed in a suit whose allegations of infliction of psychological injuries and emotional distress were dismissed by the judge for lack of credible evidence.

Timidguy, you and Sethie know more about Wikipedia so I'm mostly bowing out (just for now though!) However, I'd like to commment on the above...(1) The affidavit being 20 years old doesn't make it inaccurate, (2) the fact that it occurred some 30 years ago doesn't make it inaccurate, (3) DeNaro was corporate counsel to a TMO organization headquartered at MIU as well as an MIU instructor, which IMO gives his statements quite a bit of "authority", (4) Being "disgruntled" doesn't make him any less objective and accurate than someone who is "gruntled" (and although I know you don't mean it this way yourself it is a common form of attack used by cults to call whistleblowers "disgruntled" as if that affected the accuracy of the whistleblowing), (5) Carroll is *certainly* no more "biased" than the TMO webpages that are often cited in the TM article, (6) Whether or not there are errors in Carroll's book doesn't of itself entirely invalidate the book as a reference, (7) The outcome of the suit doesn't mean that DeNaro's statements were inaccurate, (8) The *personal opinions* (and that's what they amount to) of a judge do not make DeNaro's claims inaccurate -- judges make mistakes all the time and as far as we know this may be one of them -- in fact it is extraordinarly difficult to obtain a favorable judgement against organizations where participation results in psychological harm because, for example, of the "they're just disgruntled" and "they must have had prior psychological problems" gambits -- a judge is just not professionally qualified to judge whether or not the problems instead might have been caused by, for example, excessive induced dissociation via TM practice many times a day for perhaps years at a time.

In short, IMO none of this affects whether or not Carroll's quotes of DeNaro are citable. Tanaats 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad to always be opposing you guys. It's not my nature. And I do think there are some valid points that can be made. But it just doesn't seem like this is one of them.TimidGuy 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear that .... and, my answer is: no.

"I hear that" means I get your pain, dislike and concern about the source. "I hear that" means I oftentimes feel the same way about sources!

"No" means I won't go there with you on this disucssion page. "No" means that for me, your or my commentary about a source is origonal research. love, Sethie 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dittos. I have pain, dislike, and concern about TMO sources. They are extremely biased and mostly contain only the personal opinions (that's what his "teachings" amount to) of MMY. But I accept that the TMO side of the story must be told, biased and *completely* unverifiable (except by quoting biased TMO sources) as much of it is. Similarly, I believe that the other side of the story must be given a "level playing field". Tanaats 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. : ) TimidGuy 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Carroll's credibility has gone up, IMO. I wrote to him asking for a citation for his statement regarding Dr. Rabinoff's research. He wrote back: "Go to pages 99ff in James Randi's "Flim-Flam!" and the account of Rainoff's claims is found there. He made these claims in a talk at the University of Oregon attended by Ray Hyman."

Which explains why it couldn't be found in a pub search. Tanaats 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Errrrr! Frustration!!! I am pretty sure about a year about I cited it! I could be wrong here....

Regardless, That's cool you wrote to him! Sethie 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple quick points. As I understand it, Denaro apparently never worked as legal counsel for the university. I've spoken with Steve Druker, who hired him. And I don't think that teaching a couple courses at MIU makes him an authority. (If I thought that an affidavit was a valid source in Wikipedia, I'd write my own, based on my 16 years of experience in the classroom here, and I'd rebut him.)

Yes, I have Randi's book. It doesn't say that Rabinoff did a study. Carroll has that wrong. It's a good example of a half truth. Rabinoff may have made claims at the University of Oregon that Randi wasn't able to substantiate (as is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the TM-Sidhi program). But Carroll then twists that to say that Rabinoff did a study. Then Carroll writes that Randi concludes that Rabinoff made up the data. Randi doesn't conclude that. The way that Carroll presents it, the reader comes away with the impression that Rabinoff published a study and made up the data. He misrepresents in small ways what Randi says, and to my mind it conveys something untrue to the reader.

I'm not accusing Carroll of deliberately doing this; he may simply have misread Randi. Or not read it carefully. But it's one of a number of instances where he's inaccurate in the TM article. And I believe that that affects the reliability of his book as a source.

Also, I believe that "the TM side of the story" is verifiable, because there are 160 peer-reviewed studies. (I don't, however, deny your experience with TM.)

In any case, I'm pleased that you read closely what I wrote, especially that you attended to the point about the judgment of the appellate court. I've noticed that often in these discussions we often just scan what the other person says and respond quickly. I've been guilty of this.TimidGuy 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing, Timidguy, to cease posting your thoughts and comments about a source, here, and instead post actual citations that refute the claims of that source?

If you are not willing or able to do that, would you be willing to explain to, how your pesonal thoughts/feelings/views/response to a source, are not origonal research?Sethie 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't quite understand why you're asking me to cease posting relevant information about a source. I thought that was the purpose of the Talk page. And I don't understand the sense in which what I've posted constitutes my personal views. I thought I did a good job of presenting facts about affidavits, etc.

And I don't undertand why I can't research some of these points in order to determine the merit of a source. I thought the purpose of the Talk page is to bring to bear relevant facts to determine whether or not a source is reliable. And doesn't the guideline on original research just apply to the article itself? TimidGuy 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a buncha' responses, but I'll wait and listen to you guys discuss this first. Tanaats 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, given that you're more experienced with Wikipedia than I am, it would be great if you could explain the merger process to me sometime. Do we simply wait for a length of time and then if no one has come to discuss, go ahead and do it? Thanks much. TimidGuy 21:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. And my answer is still no. If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic.

And so, let me make my request more clear, would you be willing to cease your origonal research HERE and find a REPUTABLE source (sorry I don't consider you or me to be one) that shares your disdain for the skeptics dictionary?Sethie 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Also, I was just noticing that the specific paragraphs that Tanaats proposed to add don't appear in the Skepic's Dictionary.

I think this has been a useful discussion, and I appreciate the contributions of both of you. I'm learning a lot. It feels like we've reached a bit of an impasse. It might be interersting and educational to try the dispute procedures. We could do a formal Request for Comment, following the guidelines given.TimidGuy 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for moving the disucssion away from your thoughts and towards wiikipedia policy and the actual article... hence I find more willingness to dialogue with you.

I would also like to say you are correct I was in error- the same material is not covered in both sources (trancenet and skeptics dictionary). For me this discussion is about using material from the Skeptics Dictionary.

I'm cool with that!  :) Tanaats 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a peace of cake for me in this case. If you are able to, please let me know how "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is an issue here? It's not like I'm saying, "Denarro said MMY is an alien from Mars." I would say, Denarro said xyz, cut and paste from the skeptics dictonary, and add citation.

My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR (i.e your thoughts about Denarro, the situation, affidavits, and the Skeptics Dictionary).

You are welcome to do a Rfc. This page has had roughly 4 in the last year. I don't believe a single one drew in any outside comments. Sethie 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I'm glad you feel the discussion is moving forward. And it's good to have your longer-term insight regarding the effectiveness of RfC.

The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

If you are willing, please show me a wikipedia policy which say "The burden of evidence lies with that person."Sethie 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Your response does not answer my 2 question. Are you not willing to answer it? Or are you not able to?

Your allegation 2 paragraphs above say that this "burden of evidence" in WP:V means "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source." I asked you to refference this claim. You did not. You just cut and pasted a quote. Please try again, or say, "I cannot answer your questions, because not such policy exists." or "I cannot answer that question, because I cannot find such a policy." Sethie 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See your question #1. You asked me to cite a Wikipedia policy for the statement "The burden of evidence lies with that person." I can't find anyplace where I said that. I assumed you meant the instance in which I quoted this from Wikipedia: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So I provided the citation for that.

Incorrect, Timidguy, if you go in sequential order, my first question was ":::If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

Yes, I was responding to your second question.TimidGuy 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find where you said "that" I reffer you to, well, you, where you said both statements that I questioned. In fact I just cut and pasted your exact words: "::The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

I think you're right that my paraphrase of that guideline may not have been apt in this situation. I need to look at the guideline and consider it futher. (Can't do it now -- am heading off to play tennis.) I was just looking at the Wikipedia guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Let's give that some attention.

As for apt paraphrase or not, my only comment is that I cannott (and thus far, neither can you) find any wiki policy which says: "it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person."

Assume you understand that that was a paraphrase and that I wasn't quoting guidelines in that instance. (Which is why it didn't have quotation marks around it.)

I never said you were quoting guidelines. I am said you said: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.Sethie 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as moving on to reliable_sources, I am willing to do that, if you are sure you are done with WP:V as an objection for the Skeptics Dictionary. Otherwise I would like to finish here before moving on. Please indicate clearly whether you are done with you contention that that including the Skeptics Dictionary violates WP:V.

It's good we're discussing this. Thanks for sticking with it. Maybe once we have a good understanding of what constitutes reliable sources, we can scrutinize all of the sources cited in the article. TimidGuy 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask me later, I may or may not be up for that.Sethie 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:V, I think this quote applies: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In my opinion, Skeptic's Dictionary falls down on this matter. Carroll gets a number of facts wrong. I've given one example, in which he says,"One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa." Rabinoff didn't do such a study. I can cite other errors.TimidGuy 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that you want to focus on wp:V right now.

Please show me a wikipedia WP:V policy which says, If a source gets one fact wrong (according to a wikipedia editor) , that source violates WP:V, and cannot be used. Sethie 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

HEY: This discussion is ridiculous to the point of being embarrassing.

Wikipedia is not even asserting that DeNaro is correct, only that he made the statements, that the statements are relevant to the topic, and that he is a credible source.

The guy wasn't some homeless guy off the street who swore a crazy affidavit, nor was he just some "employee" like the janitor. He was the outfit's corporate lawyer--one of the insiders, one of the bigwigs--and he he blew the whistle on this racket. Like, DUHHH: that would be an authoritative source to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or anybody else writing about this.

On TOP of that, he didn't just give a press conference; he swore under penalty of perjury that he's telling the truth! AND: up until the day he quit in disgust, he was the LEGAL SPOKESMAN for this outfit.

Had you read the discussion, you would have seen that it's a matter of dispute whether he worked as legal counsel for the university.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a credible source? That's exactly like calling Nixon's ex-lawyer John Dean not a credible source.

---> It's not possible for a source to BE more credible

What would it take for this guy to be credible enough for wikipedia? A lie-detector test? Winning the Nobel Prize in "veracity"? He ALREADY swore on a bible!

Or shall we only allow statements by his Holiness The Great Oz-Maharishi on matters like walking through walls, flying through the air, and making yourself invisible?

God DAMN, this is the stupidest conversation I've ever heard between people who weren't retarded.Sys Hax 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Sys Hax.

First off, please remain civil, this page has been through enough shi-crap.

The discussion currently is not about Denarro as a credible source. It is about whether the Skeptic's Dictionary, where his affidavit is quoted violates WP:V, so, are you willing, for now, to focus your attention there? And are you willing to reframe from deragotory and sarcastic comments like the last three? Sethie 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie and Tanaats. The comments of SysHax highlight what I like about you guys. You have both been honorable and decent and fair and civil.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And now, to continue our discussion. Carroll has many facts wrong. Just looking at the sentence I quoted, there are two additional errors. Rabinoff hasn't been on faculty since the early 1980s. So the sentence should have stipulated that he was former faculty. And that he taught at MIU, not MUM. There are many additional errors.

The Wikipedia policy says that sources should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Carroll has three errors in one sentence that just a small amount of fact checking could have corrected. It would only have taken one quick phone call. And I believe that one purpose of the Talk page is to discuss the reliability of souruces.

Thank you for refferencing actual wikipedia policy.

Now, please show me where the wikipedia policy says that the opinion of a wiki editor is how we make that determination. You keep sharing your opinion of the source!

So.... reliable or not.... On the one hand, the guy has a Ph.D., he is on the faculty for a community college, his book has been published by a company publishing books for over 200 years, appears to be a reputable publisher (they did publish Poe and Melville....) [[7]] and the book itself has it's own wiki with no criticism listed!

On the other hand, we have a WP:SPA, who has misquoted wiki policy during this discussion, (direct quotes from you: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable; it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."), looked to side issues from the start (is an affidavit a credible source? instead of is the place it is listed credible?; since it was filed out of court, blah blah blah; was his affidavit "superseded" by court decisions?)

And, other then you, there is no evidence that it is a source of dubious reliability.

I believe I have been paitent, and I have had enough of this dialogue. I'm going to put it in as a source. If you don't like it, find some other wikipediaians who believe in your cause, who are not WP:SPA's who have a little more experience then you and I'll dialogue this with them.Sethie 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I believe my critical examination of the reliability of a source is exactly what the Talk page is for. If you disagree, maybe you could show me a guideline that says it's disallowed. And I've noted errors that anyone could easily verify with a phone call. This just isn't the sort of source that should be represented in Wikipedia, at least as regards what it says on Transcendental Meditation.

And frankly, I do feel that editors should take great care in presenting sources that are reliable. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. And they should be grateful if someone points out that a source they'd like to cite has serious problems with facts. I think that it could be argued that that guideline does apply: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's saying that any information that's added should be sourced. And later it says that that source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. How can you sincerely believe that The Skeptic's Dictionary is accurate and has had the facts checked after I've pointed out three errors in one sentence? And earlier pointed out a fourth error in the same paragraph. That's four errors in just one paragraph.

So what do you say -- let's do an RfC. We'll focus it on the reliability of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I'll invite two neutral Admins who've been here before to comment. We can each state our case. TimidGuy 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is that you keep thinking it is your job to evaluate the CONTENT of the source, and not the source itself. The moment you leave out content and focus your attention where it belongs, on the source, on the author, on the publisher I'll discuss with you.

And by all means, invite LOTS of people here. Sethie 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhyana?

While we're discussing the above, I'd like to start a new thread. I have a problem with the sentence "TM is considered a form of "dhyana", using the terminology of Patanjali." This is certainly disputable, e.g. the paragraph goes on to say that the TM meaning of "dhyana" is different from the generally accepted definition. Furthermore, it is too general. *Who* exactly considers it to be a form of dhyana? Tanaats 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. I'd actually like to delete this because I don't think it is a form of dhyana. I don't think Maharishi ever presented it as such.TimidGuy 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Shall I go ahead and do it? It will also take out a reference to "effortlessness", but I think that point is made right at the beginning of the page. Tanaats 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks.TimidGuy 12:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't see you edit summary comment that I should reference the Talk page in time. Tanaats 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Transcendental Meditation a religion?

I propose adding the following to "Is Transcendental Meditation a Religion?" ...

The TM movement offers "yagyas"[8]. Also called a Yajna, a yagya "is performed to please the Devas, or sometimes to the Supreme Spirit Brahman."[9]

Official TM teachings include teachings about "God", e.g.: "All the Maharishi Yagya programs are with reference to Natural Law -- the Will of God. It is very necessary for anyone who is entertaining the Maharishi Yagya programs to align their life to the rules of purity of life, as they understand purity of life."[10]. "The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator."[11]. "God is found in two phases of reality: as a supreme being of absolute, eternal nature and as a personal God at the highest level of phenomenal creation!" (Science of Being and Art of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rev. Ed. 1967, p. 271). "The solution, Maharishi said, is groups of Yogic Flyers. The impact of the groups will be immediate and clear. 'A new destiny of mankind will dawn when Total Natural Law -- the Constitution of the Universe, the Divine Will of God -- which is present in every grain of creation -- rules the world of human beings as it rules the ever-expanding universe.'"[12]. Tanaats 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have great sources there- the TM organization itself. I propose not creating a new section, just adding it under the current religion section. This material was there, including more of the Hindu/Vedic components of TM, well sourced, until someone removed them. Sethie 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I wasn't clear. I was indeed thinking to put it at the bottom of the current Religion section. Tanaats 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is not a reliable source!!! Just joking. : ) I think this proposed section is fair and could be added. (Though I or someone may eventually add a point or two to try to qualify the statements.)

The question is where to add it. Note that I've divided the Criticism section into two parts, those more directly related to TM and those related to other programs Maharishi has introduced. Maybe it could be divided between the two sections.TimidGuy 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it belongs in the "Religion?" section. Putting it anywhere else would make it quite a bit "out of context". Also it relates most directly to the "Religion?" issue. As for posting qualifications, of course the section should be NPOV (see, I'm learning the lingo!). Tanaats 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\

We could create a new section in the "Other related controversies section" for the point about Yagyas. The heading could be "Are Yagyas religious ceremonies?" It would really be great if we could avoid confusing people by letting them know which controversies are directly relatled to TM and which are related to other programs. Yes, of course, any qualifying ponts would cite sources. TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Need reference to "SCI"

How about changing "...teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..." to ..."teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[13]..."? Otherwise the reference to SCI will be a mystery to many readers Tanaats 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Please do.TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Tanaats 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychological training

The sentence "However, no TM teacher has the qualifications to accurately screen for psychological problems" is not 100% accurate since some of the zillions of TM teachers who were trained might have been psychologists or psychiatrists. So I've changed it to "However, TM "teacher training" does not include training on how to accurately screen for psychological or psychiatric problems". Tanaats 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)